Case: Mool Chand Sharma Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2. The appellant was the President of the Municipal Board, Pilkhuwa, in January-February 1959. On January 4, 1959, a written notice of the intention to make a motion of no confidence in the President signed by nine members of the Board including Ram Nath and Kesho Ram Gupta, was delivered to the District Magistrate. Meerut, in pursuance of sub-s. (2) of S. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1916 (U.P Act II of 1916), hereinafter called the Act. The District Magistrate, Meerut, duly convened a meeting of the Board on February 6, 1961.3. The appellant moved writ petition No 367 of 1961 in the High Court on February 2, 1961 and questioned the validity of that notice. That petition was dismissed in limine on the same day. It was held that unless and until an order of removal is passed actually by the State Government there could not be any removal of a member or anything which would disentitle a member to take part in the proceedings of the meeting and that the application was also premature.4. The meeting of the Board took place on February 6, 1961. Mr. Agarwala, Munsif, Meerut, presided over the meeting. All the ten members who were present, voted for the motion of no confidence and the Munsif declared the motion to have been carried. The appellant, by his writ petition, desired the proceedings of the meeting to be quashed and the resolution expressing no confidence in the appellant be not given effect to by the State of U. P. and the District Magistrate.5. It was urged before the High Court that the notice of motion delivered to the District Magistrate was invalid and so were the proceedings of the meeting. Ram Nath and Kesho Ram Gupta who had signed the notice and also Raghunandan Prasad who along with them took part in the proceedings of the meeting and voted in support of the no confidence resolution, had incurred, prior to January 4, 1961, disqualification under S. 13-D (g) of the Act inasmuch as they were in arrears in the payment of municipal tax and other dues in excess of one years demand to which S. 166 of the Act applied. The contention was that on account of their having incurred the aforesaid disqualification, they were disqualified from being members of the Board and, consequently, were not competent to exercise the rights of a member of the Municipal Board.6. The High Court held that Ram Nath had been proved to be in arrears in payment of house tax on February 6, 1961,and that Kesho Ram Gupta and Raghunandan Prasad were not in arrears in payment of the Tehbazari tax for the year 1959-60 and house tax respectively. It held that a member of the Board did not cease to be a member on his incurring the disqualification under S. 13-D (g) and that he became disqualified merely to exercise office and to act as a member. The learned Judges observedthe continuance of the disqualification the persons right to act as a member falls into a state of suspension. On removal of the disqualification the state of suspension disappears and his right to exercise office as a member of the board revives unless he has been removed by Government from membership of the board under S. 40 of the Act during the continuance ofthat the motion of no confidence was valid as it had been passed by the vote of nine members who constituted the majority of more than half the total number of members of the Board, that being seventeen, and that those nine members of the Board being qualified and duly elected members of the Board, Ram Naths taking part in that meeting did not vitiate its proceedings in view of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 113 of the Act, the learned Judges dismissed the writ petition. The learned Judges did not consider the validity of the notice on merits as they were of opinion that the order on writ petition No. 397 of 1961 operated as res judicata, though in view of their opinion the notice of motion of no confidence would have been invalid if the name of Ram Nath be excluded from the signatories as in that case the number would be eight and so one short of the number required by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 87-A of the Act. The meeting held in pursuance of a bad notice would also have been invalid.

Court's reasoning:
e do not agree with the second contention for the appellant, or with the view expressed by the learned Judges that a person who incurs disqualification under Cl (g) of S. 13-D of the Act becomes disqualified to exercise office and to act as aprovisions of S. 13-D do apply to members of the board incurring disqualification during the period of their membership and are not confined in their application to the stage previous to the election as, in that case, the expression and for being in the section would have beenWe are therefore of opinion that a member of the Municipal Board does not automatically come under suspension or lose his right to take part in the proceedings of the board or perform the duties of a member or cease to be member of the board merely on his incurring any of the disqualifications mentioned in S. 13-D.It may be mentioned that any other conclusion can have very unstable effect and can indefinitely make the validity of the proceedings and action of the board uncertain as one cannot predicate at any moment of time as to which of the members of the board has incurred a disqualification, a matter which must be dependent mostly on the proof of the allegations made. Such could not have been the intention of the Legislature.12. The result therefore is that even if Ram Nath, Kesho Ram Gupta and Raghunandan Prasad had incurred the disqualification under Cl. (g) of S 13-D of the Act, they were not incompetent to exercise their rights as members of the board and could therefore validly sign the notice of motion of no confidence and take part in the proceedings of the meeting held in pursuance of the provisions of S 87-A of the Act on February 6, 1961. It follows that the proceedings of, and the resolution passed at, the meeting of February 6, 1961, are valid and that the order of the High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition is correct, though for different reasons.