Dismissed

Shashi Bala Tiwari W/O Shri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2019CW/3678/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice issued for a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Alwar, held that there is no mandatory 30-day limitation to conclude proceedings under the 2017 Rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ application instituted by the petitioners is dismissed.

Shashi Bala Tiwari W/O Shri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 3678/2019

¶3

Shashi Bala Tiwari W/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, Resident Of 108. Alkapuri Alwar ( Rajasthan) Presently Vice Chair Person Municipal Council Alwar ( Rajasthan)

¶4

Ashok Kumar Khanna S/o Krishan Lal Khanna, Resident Of 392, Lajpat Nagar Alwar ( Rajasthan) Presently Chairperson Of Municipal Counsel Alwar ( Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Urban Development Housing Department Government Secretariat Jaipur

¶8

Local Self Department, Near 22 Godam, Jaipur Through Its Director

¶9

District Collector, Alwar.

¶10

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Alwar ( Rajasthan)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Khanna, representative of the petitioners For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

18/02/2019

¶16

Aggrieved of the Notice dated 13^th February, 2019, the petitioners, who are Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, have instituted the present writ application assailing legality, validity and correctness of the notice issued under Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No-confidence Against Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2017 (for short, Rules of 2017).

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CW-3678/2019]

¶19

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khanna, petitioner present in personChairperson of the Municipal Council, Alwar, contended that the proceedings initiated for “no confidence” of the petitioners vide order dated 8^th January, 2019, were required to be completed within 30 days in the backdrop of order dated 30^th December, 2018, wherein the meeting was to be convened on 17^th January, 2019.

¶20

Referring to order dated 16^th January, 2019, made on writ application No. 1204/2019 (Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.), it is further asserted that the Collector, District Alwar, did not comply with the requirement of law. According to the petitioners, the operation of impugned order dated 8^th January, 2019, was stayed, and therefore, fresh notice issued by the District Collector, Alwar, impugned herein dated 13^th February, 2019; is in flagrant violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 2017, and hence, bad in the eye of law.

¶21

Petitioners laid much emphasis on communication dated 13^th September, 2017, wherein the State Government made a direction to conclude the proceedings under the Rules of 2017, within 30 days. For the period of 30 days was already over on 7^th /8^th February, 2019; therefore, no fresh notice could have been issued.

¶22

Heard and considered.

¶23

The controversy raised by the petitioners may not be detained this court for long in the face of text of Rule 3 of Rules of 2017, which reads thus:

¶24

“3. Procedure for no confidence:- (1) A written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence in the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, signed by three-forth eligible members of the Municipality together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CW-3678/2019]

¶27

made, shall be sent to the collector of the District, who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Municipality, on the date and at the time appointed by him.

¶28

(2) the collector shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting a notice of such meeting and of the date and time fixed therefore to every eligible member of the Municipality.

¶29

(3) the collector or officer authorized by him shall preside at such meeting and if within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, Collector or officer authorized by him is not present or is unable for any unavoidable cause to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the time to be fixed and notified to the eligible members.

¶30

(4) A meeting convened for purpose for consideration of the motion of no confidence under these rules shall not for any reason except stated in sub-rule (3), be adjourned.

¶31

(5) Three-fourth of the number of eligible members shall be required to form the quorum.

¶32

(6) No meeting for the consideration of the motion of no confidence shall be held in absence of quorum.

¶33

(7) The motion of no confidence against the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson shall be deemed to have been lost of required members for the quorum are not present within an hour from the time appointed for the meeting.

¶34

(8) As soon as the quorum is complete, the Collector or his nominee shall read the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion.

¶35

(9) Such discussion shall not be adjourned and shall automatically terminate on the expiry of four hours from the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier.

¶36

(10) In the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of four hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote. The Collector or officer authorized by him shall neither speak on the merits thereof no comments thereon. The voting shall be carried out by way of secret ballot.

¶37

(11) If the motion is not carried by a three-fourth number of eligible members, the motion of no confidence against the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson.

¶38

(12) If the motion is carried by a majority of threefourth number of eligible members, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairperson or

¶39

(4 of 5)

¶40

[CW-3678/2019]

¶41

Vice-Chairperson and such Chairperson or ViceChairperson, as the case may be, shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office.”

¶42

A glance of Rule 3(2), in no uncertain terms contemplates that the Collector shall send by registered post not less than 7 clear days, before the date of meeting, a notice of such meeting and the date and time fixed and therefor to every eligible member of the municipality.

¶43

Definition of Clause of “eligible member” under Rule 2(b) contemplates elected members of a Municipality but shall not include nominated members and any member disqualified or suspended under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

¶44

Indisputably, there is no contemplation under the Rules of 2017, to conclude the proceedings of no confidence within 30 days which has been much emphasized by the petitioners.

¶45

Be that as it may, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while making order dated 16^th January, 2019, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Saini (supra), made it clear that respondent No. 3 therein-Collector, District Alwar; would be at liberty to fix fresh date for “No Confidence” after issuance of fresh notice to all the elected members alongwith M.P. and M.L.A. according to law.

¶46

The Collector, District Alwar, in exercise of powers by virtue of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 2017, has issued notice of not less than seven clear days fixing 22^nd February, 2019, as the date for consideration of the “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioners. There is no violation of any of the Rules of 2017.

¶47