Chattisgarh High Court
Satya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 284 of 2022
Satya Gupta W/o Rajerndra Gupta, aged about 49 years, Resident of
Ward No. 14, Rahod, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Rural and
Urban administration, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa-Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
3. Municipal Council, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa through its Chief
Municipal Officer, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4. Vice-Chairman, Municipal Council, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy AG
For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 29.06.2022
Date of Judgment : 10.08.2022
_________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C A V Judgment
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General,
2
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 Councilors 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
Councilors.
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. 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 Councilors. 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.― (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. 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 Councilors present and voting in the meeting and (b) if such
majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councilors
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 Councilors constituting the Council for the time
being.
17. There is no allegation that the requisition was not signed by
the requisite number of Councilors.
18. From materials on record of the writ petition, it is seen that 12
Councilors 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 Councilors is bad, besides being partial and non-
cooperative as a result of which the Councilors 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 Councilors, as a result of which there is resentment
amongst the Councilors.
19. From the order dated 04.05.2022 placed on the records of the
writ appeal, it is seen that the 12 Councilors, 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. 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. 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 Councilors 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.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Chandra
