JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J.- 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2408 of 2022. 3. Facts, as presented in the writ petition, inter alia, are that the petitioner was declared elected as a Councilor of Ward No. 14 of Municipal Council, Rahod. Thereafter, the elected Councillors elected her as the President of the Municipal Council, Rahod. Though she had facilitated various works being sanctioned by the Government of Chhattisgarh, the respondent No.4, who is the vice-chairman of the Municipal Council, because of jealousy and ill will, had filed a requisition of no-confidence motion before the respondent No.2 i.e., the Collector, District-Janjgir-Champa, on vague charges of not fulfilling their illegal demands. The petitioner had filed an application for rejection of requisition of the no-confidence motion and that Dayashankar Gond, Councilor of Ward No.1 had informed her that his signature was obtained by fraud in the requisition dated 19.05.2022. It is pleaded in the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before taking any action on the request for holding the no-confidence motion. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 had not ensured the authenticity of the signatures of the Councillors. 4. The learned Single Judge, relying on the provisions contained in Section 43-A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961'), observed that when the statutory compliance had been made, a motion cannot be defeated by any technical reason, though the same is also not demonstrated before the Court. It was recorded that the Collector had issued a proper notice and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and no satisfaction or preliminary enquiry is needed in law and holding as such, refused to interfere with the notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Collector and designated officer i.e., respondent No.2, in terms of Section 43-A (2)(ii) of the Act of 1961 for convening a special meeting with regard to no-confidence motion against the petitioner. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Singh submits that the allegations made in the requisition notice dated 04.05.2022 are wholly unfounded and the Collector was obliged to make an enquiry about the genuineness of the allegations before convening a meeting for holding a no-confidence motion. He has further submitted that the Collector committed illegality in not enclosing the copy of the requisition notice along with the notice dated 17.05.2022 for convening a meeting for discussing no-confidence motion against the petitioner and as such, the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Mr. Tiwari submits that on the ground that the requisitionists had not been made parties to the proceedings alone, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. He has submitted that there is no requirement in law that the Collector, while convening the meeting, has to forward the requisition and/or the allegations received and in the instant case, the Collector had strictly acted in accordance with law. It is submitted by him that no duty is cast on the Collector to enquire about the veracity of allegations, if any, and the Collector is required to convene a meeting forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors. It is submitted that there is also no challenge to the provisions contained in Section 43-A. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. Section 43-A of the Act of 1961 was inserted by M.P. Act No. 18 of 1997. Section 43-A of the Act of 1961, as inserted, reads as follows : "43-A. No-confidence motion against Vice President.? (1) A motion of no-confidence may be moved against the Vice President by any elected Councillor at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) and if the motion, is carried by a majority of two thirds of the elected Councillors present and voting in the meeting and if such majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council, the office of the Vice President, shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith a copy of such motion shall be sent by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Collector forthwith for filling up the Vacancy : Provided that no such resolution shall lie against the Vice-President within a period of ? (i) two years from the date on which the Vice President enters upon his office ; (ii) one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a meeting of the Council shall be convened and presided over by the Collector or a Class-I Officer in case of a Municipal Council and a Class II Officer in case of Nagar Panchayat as nominated by him, in the following manner, namely :- (i) the meeting shall be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being ; (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be despatched to the President and every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting ; (iii) the no confidence motion moved under this Section shall be decided through secret ballot." 9. It appears that many amendments had taken place in the Act of 1961. All these amendments that had taken place are not relevant for the purpose of consideration of this case. However, the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Amendment Act, 2019') is relevant. By the said Amendment Act of 2019 a number of amendments were effected including in Section 43-A. 10. A Municipal Council of a Nagar panchayat consists of, amongst others, President, Vice-President and Councillors. Though by the M.P. Act No. 18 of 1997 provision for no-confidence motion against a Vice-President was inserted, there was no provision for no-confidence motion against the President. By Section 14 of the Amendment Act, 2019, the same was sought to be inserted. Section 14 of the Amendment Act, 2019 reads as follows : "14. In the Principal Act, in Section 43-A, ? (i) in the heading, before the words Vice President", the words "the President or" shall be inserted. (ii) in sub-section (1), before the words "Vice President", wherever they occur, the words "the President or" shall be inserted. (iii) in sub-section (2), clause (ii), for the word "President", the words "President, Vice-President" shall be substituted." 11. Section 43-A now reads as follows : "43-A. No-confidence motion against the President or Vice President.? (ii) in sub-section (1), before the words "Vice President", wherever they occur, the words "the President or" shall be inserted. (iii) in sub-section (2), clause (ii), for the word "President", the words "President, Vice-President" shall be substituted." 11. Section 43-A now reads as follows : "43-A. No-confidence motion against the President or Vice President.? (1) A motion of no-confidence may be moved against the President or the Vice President by any elected Councillor at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) and if the motion, is carried by a majority of two thirds of the elected Councillors present and voting in the meeting and if such majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council, the office of the President or the Vice President, shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith a copy of such motion shall be sent by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Collector forthwith for filling up the Vacancy : Provided that no such resolution shall lie against the President or the Vice-President within a period of ? (i) two years from the date on which the President or the Vice President enters upon his office ; (ii) one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a meeting of the Council shall be convened and presided over by the Collector or a Class-I Officer in case of a Municipal Council and a Class II Officer in case of Nagar Panchayat as nominated by him, in the following manner, namely :- (i) the meeting shall be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being ; (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be despatched to the President, Vice-President and every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting ; (iii) the no confidence motion moved under this Section shall be decided through secret ballot." 12. A perusal of Section 43-A(1) as it stands now (without taking into consideration the proviso part) would go show that it consists of one sentence. In our considered opinion, in between the words "forthwith” and “a copy of such motion", the word "and" should have found place. 13. A perusal of Section 43-A(1) as it stands now (without taking into consideration the proviso part) would go show that it consists of one sentence. In our considered opinion, in between the words "forthwith” and “a copy of such motion", the word "and" should have found place. 13. Reading of Section 43-A (1) excluding the proviso would go to show that : (i) a motion of no confidence may be moved against the President or the Vice-President by any elected Councillor at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section 43-A(2); (ii) The office of the President or the Vice-President shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith when twin conditions, namely, if the motion is carried (a) by majority of two thirds of the elected Councillors present and voting in the meeting and (b) if such majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council, are satisfied; (iii) Copy of motion is required to be sent by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Collector forthwith for filling up the vacancy. 14. Proviso to Section 43-A lays down that no such resolution shall lie against the President or Vice-President within a period of (a) two years from the date on which the President or the Vice President enters upon his office and (b) one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. 15. How the meeting is to be convened is delineated in Section 43-A(2) of the Act of 1961. 16. Section 43-A(2) provides that the meeting is to be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being. 17. There is no allegation that the requisition was not signed by the requisite number of Councillors. 18. 16. Section 43-A(2) provides that the meeting is to be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being. 17. There is no allegation that the requisition was not signed by the requisite number of Councillors. 18. From materials on record of the writ petition, it is seen that 12 Councillors had moved the no-confidence motion primarily on the allegations that the petitioner is not discharging her duties in public interest for the last two years since her assumption of office as President and that she is only self-serving personal interest; that her behaviour towards Councillors is bad, besides being partial and non-cooperative as a result of which the Councillors have to face the wrath of the people; that she does not take interest in the works relating to public interest as a result of which development works of the town are stalled; that the petitioner interferes with the development works of the wards of the Councillors, as a result of which there is resentment amongst the Councillors. 19. From the order dated 04.05.2022 placed on the records of the writ appeal, it is seen that the 12 Councillors, who had signed in the requisition, had remained present before the Collector and the Collector had recorded in the order dated 04.05.2022 that they had voluntarily subscribed the signatures in the requisition notice. It is also seen from the said order that their statements were recorded and signatures taken. After recording as such, inexplicably, the Collector had sought for a report from the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Rahod. Such course of action taken by the Collector is wholly uncalled for. 20. In the instant case, requisition was submitted to the Collector on 05.05.2022 and notice was issued for holding a meeting only on 17.05.2022. Section 43-A(2), as noticed earlier, requires that if the condition of a valid requisition is fulfilled, meeting is to be convened forthwith. 21. In the case of Bidya Deb Barma Etc. v. District Magistrate, Tripura, Agartala, reported in AIR 1969 SC 323 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “When a statute requires that something shall be done “forthwith” or “immediately” or even “instantly”, it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it.” 22. 21. In the case of Bidya Deb Barma Etc. v. District Magistrate, Tripura, Agartala, reported in AIR 1969 SC 323 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “When a statute requires that something shall be done “forthwith” or “immediately” or even “instantly”, it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it.” 22. In the case of Gopal Mondal v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 590 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the "forthwith" as follows : “The word “forthwith” has been interpreted to mean “as soon as possible; without any delay”. 23. In the case of Raymond Synthetics Ltd. And Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 255 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the "forthwith" as follows : “The expression “forthwith” does not necessarily and always mean instantaneous. The expression has to be understood in the context of the statue. Where, however, the statute prescribes the payment of money and the accrual of interest thereon at certain points of time, the expression “forthwith” must necessarily be understood to be immediate or instantaneous, so as to avoid any ambiguity or uncertainty.” 24. In the case of Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1496 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the "forthwith" as follows : “The expression ‘forthwith’ would mean 'as soon as may be', that the action should be performed by the authority with reasonable speed and expedition with a sense of urgency without any unavoidable delay. No hard and fast rule could be laid nor a particular period is prescribed. There should not be any indifference or callousness is consideration and disposal of the representation. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.” 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, convening of the meeting after 12 days of receipt of the requisition of no-confidence, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as reasonable. 26. However, the argument of Mr. Singh that the Collector was required to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the requisition is without any substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, convening of the meeting after 12 days of receipt of the requisition of no-confidence, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as reasonable. 26. However, the argument of Mr. Singh that the Collector was required to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the requisition is without any substance. No power is vested on the Collector to examine the allegations, if any, made in the requisition notice and if a notice expressing no-confidence is signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council, he has no option but to convene a meeting forthwith. 27. In absence of a plea raised in writ petition with regard to the contention advanced before us that the copy of the requisition was required to be sent by the Collector along with the notice convening the meeting for holding discussion on no-confidence motion and language of Section 43-A having not prescribed that copy of requisition and/or allegations, if any, are required to be sent along with the notice, we are not examining the aforesaid plea in the present appeal. We leave the question open to be determined in an appropriate case when a plea is specifically raised challenging the relevant provision. 28. We are in accord with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 29. Though the meeting was convened on 30.05.2022, the same could not be held on 30.05.2022 because of the interim order dated 29.05.2022 passed by this Court. The Collector is directed to convene a special meeting forthwith to consider the no-confidence motion. 30. No cost.