Mool Chand Sharma versus State of Uttar Pradesh

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962)

referred to arbitration. It seems to us that every Sliamswidfo Abdul Kadir Bohm allegation tending suggest or imply moral dishonesty V. or moral misconduct in tho matter of keeping ac- M adhat. Oak Prabhakar counts would not amount to Ruch serious allet'ation of fraud as would impel a court to refuse to order lVancl.Oo J. the arbitration agreement to be filed and refuse to make a reforence. Looking to the allegations which have made in this case we aro of opinion that there are no such serious allegations of fraud in this case P.S would ho sufficient for the court to say that thcro is sufficient causo for not referring tho dispute to arbitration. This contention of the appellant must also therefore fail.

¶3

..

¶4

The appeal therefore fails and is here by dism isscd with cost a.

Appeal dismissed.

:IIOOL CHAND SHARMA

&pttmbtr 20.

ti.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶10

(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR and RAGHUBAR DAYAJ,, JJ.)

¶11

,

¶12

Municipal Board-.Mnnber-lncurring of di~qualificaliot> lf an<l when btcomea inr.ornpeltnt to •xercise Id.• right-U.P. Municipalitie.• Act, 1916 (U.P. II of 1916;, 88.13 D(8), 87A, sub-•.2.

¶13

The appellant was the Pre•ident of a Municipal Commi- ttee. A \.'ritten notice of the intt'ntion to move a motion of no · confidence in the President signed by nine memhcrs of the Board \vas delivered to the District ~fagistrate under s. 87-A .ub-s. (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The District Magistrate duly convened a meeting of the Board, .but b~~ore the date of the meeting the appellant moved a writ pelltton in the High Court and questioned the validity of the notice. The writ petition \vas dismissed in limine inter alia as being premature. The Meeting of the Board was held on the due date and all the members present, voted for the motion of no confidence and the Munsif of the area who had presided de· clared the motion to have been carried. The appellant by hi• .econd writ petition be(orc the High Court desired that the

¶14

. ..-

¶15

3 ~.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719

¶16

proceeding of the meeting be quashed and the resolution expreSB!ng no confidence in the appellant be not given effect to by the State and the District Magistrate, for the reason that two of the members of the Board who had signed the notice and subsequently taken part in the proceedings of the meeting and voted, had incurred disqualification under s. 13-D (g) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, inasmuch as they were in arrears in the payment of municipal tax and other dues to which s. 166 of the Act applied.

¶17

1861

¶18

M ool Chand Sh4rma v. State of Uttar Pratksh

¶19

Held, that an order, dismissing a writ petition in limin• not on merits but for the reason that it was premature. could not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.

¶20

Held, further, that a member of the Municipal Board does not automatically come under suspension, or lose his rights to take part in the proceeding of the Bo<Lrd, or perform the duties of a member or cease to be a member of the Board merely on his incurring any of the disqualification mentioned in s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. A member of the Municipal Board, merely, by incurring the disqualification under cl. (g) of s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act, I 916, was not incompetent to exercise his rights ::ts a member of the Board.

¶21

Elution Oommi88ion, India v. Saka V•nkata Subba Rao, (1953] S.C.R. 1144, referred to.

¶22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1961.

¶23

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 24, 1961, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 846 of 1961.

¶24

M. 0. Sttalvad Attorney-General for India and

¶25

J. P. Goyril, for the appellant.

¶26

0. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Lal, for respondents Nos. I and 2.

¶27

0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. K. Garg, S. 0. Agarwala, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for respondents Nos. 3 to 13.

¶28

September 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶29

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by speci'l.l leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing a writ petition filed

¶30

Raghu/)ar Day•I ].

¶31

720 SUPREMl!! COURT REPORTS

(1962]

.r

1961

M ool ClraAd Sharm• v. Slate of f.,'ttar p,.,J,,h

¶36

by the appellant praying for the iRsne of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Meerut, not to give cff'ect to the resolution passed in the meeting of the members of the Municipal Board, Pilkhuwa, dated February 6, 1961, and for tho quashing of tho proceedings of that day.

¶37

..

¶38

The appellant was the President of the Muni· cipal Il8ard, Pilkhuwa, in January-February, 1959. On January 4, 1959, a written notice of the inton· tion 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 delivernd to the District Magistrate, Meerut, in pursuance of sub·s. (2) of s.87-A of the U.P. Munioi· palities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act IT of 1916), hereinafter called the Act. The District lllsgistrate, l\loerut, duly convened a meeting of the Board on February 6, 1961.

¶39

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 peti· t.ion was di~missed in limine on the same day. It was held that unlesH and until an order of removal iH pa!!l!Cd actually by the St.ate Government there coul<l not ho any removal of a. member or anything which would disentitle a member to take part ii), the proceedings of the meeting and that tho a.ppli· cation wll.ll also premature.

¶40

Tho mooting of the Board took place on February 6, 1961. Mr. Agarwala, !\Iunsif, !lleerut, presided over tho meeting all tho ten members who were present, voted for the motion of no confidence arnl the l\funsif declared the motion to have been carried. The appellnnt, by his writ petition, desir· ed the proceedings of the meeting to be quashed and the resolution expressing no confidence in the a.poellant be not given effect to by the state of U.P. an:! the District !\fa.gist.rate.

•

--

:l S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 721

¶45

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 year's 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.

¶46

1961

¶47

Mool Chand Sharma v. State of U ttar Pra<kslo

¶48

Ilagldibar Dl(Yal J,

¶49

The High Court held that Ram Nath had been proved to be in arrears in payment of house tax on February 6, 1961, and thatKeshoRamGupta and Raghunandan Prasad were not in arrears in payment o! the Tehbzarai 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 observed:

¶50

"During the continuance of the diqqualification the person's 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 hus been removed by Government from membership of the board under section 40 of the Act during the continuance of disqualification."

¶51

Holding that the motion of no confidence was valid as it had been passed by the vote of nine member.s

¶52

...^-

¶53

722 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962)

¶54

1961 who constituted the majority of more than half M ool CNmd Shamra the total number of members of the Board, that - • •• being seventeen, and that those nine members of SIMI of Ullar Pra4tsh the Board being qualified and duly elected members of the Board, Ram Nath's taking part in that 11,,,hwbar v..,.1 J. meeting did not vitiate its proceedings in view of tho provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 113 of tho Act, the learned Judges dismissoo the writ petition. The learned Judges did not consider tho validity of tho • notice on merits as they were of opinion that the order on writ petition No. 397 of 1961 operated as res judicata, though iu view of their opinion the notice of motion of no oonfidence would have been invalid if the name of Ram Nath bo excluded from the signatories as in that case the num bcr would be eight and so one short of the number required ... by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 87 ·A of tho Art. The meeting held in pursuance of a bad notice would also have been invalid.

¶55

•

¶56

The learned Attorney General, appearing for the appellant, has raised the following contention.q :

¶57

(i) The order dismissing writ petition No. 397of1961 could not operate as resjudicata as it had been dismissed mainly on account of its being premature and not on merits.

¶58

(ii) A member of the l\Iunicipal Board, on. incurring a disqualification under s. 13-D, ceases te> be a member of the Board so long as the disqualification exists and therefore he cannot net as a member of the Board for any purpose.

¶59

(iii) Kesho Ram Gupta. was also a disqualified member of the Board and the resolution of the Board dated Fcbmary (), 1961, holding that no Tehbazari tax was due from Kesho Ram Gupta and that the amount deposited by him under protest on February 9, 1961, be refunded, was ultra t•ire.~ the power of the Board which had no power to review or revise the imposition of tax.

¶60

. ......_

¶61

¶62

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 723

¶63

(iv) Due to the disqualification incurred by Ram Nath and Kesho Ram Gupta, both the notice of motion of no confidence and the proceedings of the meeting were bad as, excluding their signatures and votes, the number of mem hers signing the notice and of those voting at the meeting becomes less than half the total of the members of the Board.

¶64

1961

¶65

M ool Ch«nd Sharma v. ltate of Uttar Pradesh

¶66

Raghuhar D'!Jal ].

¶67

(v) The proceedings of the meeting were vitiated even if Ram Nath alone, who was a disqualified member, bad taken part in the meeting and were not saved by the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 113, as the meeting held in pursuance of the provisions of s. 87-A of the Act is not a meeting of the Board to which the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 113 can apply.

¶68

The learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the order dismissing writ No. 397 of 1961 could not operate as res .fudicata in these proceedings on the question whether the notice of no confidence was a valid notice or not.

¶69

We 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 disqualifird to exercise office and to act as a member.

¶70

Section 13-C of the Act lays down the qualifications for membership of the Board and s. 13-D lays down the disqualifications for membership. Of its ten clauses, the relevant clause of s. 13-D for .our purpose is cl. (g). It reads :

¶71

"A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, Phall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Board if he is in arrears in the payment of municipal tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand to which section 166 applies''.

¶72

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1062]

¶73

IHI

¶74

MHI °""" Sw""' v: Slalt of Uttar Prakh

¶75

R.,~.;., v.,.1 J._

¶76

Second proviso to this section is:

¶77

"Provided further that in the case of (gl, the disqualification shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid."

¶78

If a member of the board falls in arrears in the payment of tax, he incurs tI1is disqualification. The provisions of s. 13-D do apply to members of tho board incurring disqualification during the period of their membership and arc not confined in their application to the stage previous to the election as, in that case, tho expression 'and for being' in tho aection would have been unneeeasary. This expression has been interpreted in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Roo (¹ ) in connection with the interpretation of Art. 191, whose relevant provision is "a person shall ho disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a Staw ...... ". It was obsenred at page 1157 :

¶79

"Article 191, which lays down the same set of disqualifications for election as well as for continuing as a member, and article 193 which prescribes the penalty for sitting and voting when disqualified, a.re naturally phrased in terms wide enough to cover both pre-existing and supervening disqualifications."

¶80

There is nothing in s. 13-D or in any other section of tho Act which provides for the suspension or oessation from membership of a duly elected member on his incurring any of the disqualifications under s. 13-D. On the other hand the provi.Bions of s. 40 of the Act lead to the inferenoe that a member incurring such a disqualification, continues to be entitled to tako part in any proceedings of the Board or to perform the duties of a. member. Section 40 deals with tho removal of members and empowers the State Government

¶81

(1) [!953] S.C.R. 114-4.

¶82

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT :REPORTS

¶83

725

¶84

in the case of a city or the Prescribed Authority in any other case, to remove a member of the board on any of the grounds mentioned in els. (a) to (f) of sub-s. (1). The ground for· removal mentioned in cl. (b) is that a member has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in ss. 12-D and 13-D. Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of s. 40 read:

¶85

1961

¶86

M ool Chand Sh.rma v. State of Utt«r Pradesh

¶87

Rathubar Dayal J.

¶88

"(3) The State Government may remove from the board a member who in its opinion has so flagrantly abused in any manner his position as a member of the board as to render his continuance as a member detrimental to the public intllrest:

¶89

(4) Provided that when either the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, proposes to take action under the foregoing provisions of this section, an opportunity of explanation shall be given to the member concerned, and when such action is taken the reasons therefore shall be placed on record.

¶90

(5) The State Government may place under suspension a member, against whom proceeding under sub-sections (3) and (4) has been commenced, until the conclusion of the enquiry and any member who has been so suspended shall not so long as the order of suspension continues to remain in force, be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform the duties of a member."

¶91

The State Government is empowered to suspend a member against whom proceedings under sub-s. (4) had commenced, i.e., against whom action for removal is being taken on one of the grounds mentioned in els. (a) to (f) of sub-s. (1. A member so suspended is not entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform thfl duties of a member during the period of suspension. It can be legitimately inferred from the provisions

¶92

•

¶93

726 SUPRE¥E L,'OURT REPORTS (1962)

¶94

9'11 NHI CMnd Sharma

¶95

v. Stall of Ultar Prod.sh

¶96

R.,h.J>ar Da;·al J.

¶97

of sub-s. (5) that in the absence of an order of suspension tho member who had not only incurred an'y of the disqualifications mentioned in 8. lil-D, but against whom the Government might have started proceedings, was entitled to takc part in the proceedings of tho board or to perform tho duties of a member so long as the Government docs not place hirn under suspension. \Ve arc there· fore of opinion that a member of tho lliunicipal Board does not automatically come under suspension or lose his right to take part in tho proceedings of the boa.rd or perform the duties of a member or cease to be a member of the board merely on his incurring any of the disqualifications mentioned in s. 13-D. It may bo mentioned that any other con· clusion can have very unstable effect and can in· definitely make the validity of tho proceedings and action of the board uncertain as one cannot predi · cate at any moment of time as to which of the members of the boa.rd has incurred a disquaJifi. cation, a matter which must be dependent mostly on the proof of tho allegations made. Such could not have been tho intention of the Legislature.

¶98

Tho result therefore is th11.t 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 buard and could t.herefore validly sign the notice of motion of no confidence and take part in the proceedings of tho meeting held in pursuance of tho provisions of s. 87-A of the Act on February 6, 1961. It follows that the proceedings of, and tho resolution passed at the meeting of February 6, 1961, arc valid and that tho order of tho High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition is correct, though for different rca.aons.

¶99

In view of this opinion, it is not ncce88ary to deal with the other contentions for the appellant. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

¶100

¶101

--

¶102

--- Appeal di.smusetf.

Mool Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mool Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. H. S. Rikhy and Others versus the New Delhi Municipal Committee

Mst. Gulab Bai versus Manphool Bai

Payare Lal versus State of Punjab

Magiti Sasamal versus Pandab Bissoi

Immani Appa Rao and Others versus Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi and Ors.

The Matter of Mr. 'a' an Advocate versus .