SHAMRAO KRISHNARAO KADU Vs. NANDKISHORE GHANSHYAMDA JAISWAL
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
SHAMRAO KRISHNARAO KADU
NANDKISHORE GHANSHYAMDA JAISWAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is the president of the Municipal Council, Katol, and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the Municipal Councillors. Admittedly, on 5-9-1972 some Councillors gave a requisition to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol. Who was performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Collector under section 55 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for a meeting to be called in which a resolution of no-confidence in the petitioner was to be moved. On 6-9-1972 the Sub-Divisional Officer issued the necessary notice convening the meeting for 13-9-1972. The petitioner then immediately filed this petition praying that the notice of the meeting used by the Sub-Divisional officer should be quashed because, according to him, the three respondents who were signatories to the requisition had incurred a disqualification and, therefore ceased to be councillors. According to the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were defaulters in the matter of payment of municipal taxes. It was alleged that the respondent No 1 had not paid taxes for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 in spite of service of demand bill No. 588 dated 19-5-1972 and a report about the non-payment of taxes by him was made to the collector by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council under section 45 (1) of the Act. Further, according to him, the respondent No. 2 had also not paid taxes for the first quarter of the year 1972 amounting to Rs. 447. 50 P. and against him also a report had been made by the Chief Officer to the to the Collector. The petitioner alleged that the Collector, Nagpur, had issued show-causes notices to both these respondents why action should not be taken against them under section 45 of the Act. The Petitioner's allegation against the respondent No. 3 was that he had been absent at the meetings of the Council as from 18-12-1971 continuously until the meeting of 7-8-1972 without obtaining the leave of absence and he had also, therefore, incurred a disqualification under section 44 (1) (D) of the Act and had disabled himself from continuing as Councilor. This matter was also pending before the Collector.
(2.) WHEN this matter was heard on 12-9-1972, this court directed that the meeting scheduled to be held on 13-9-1972 should be held and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were permitted to participate in the said meeting. This court had also directed that the votes be taken by ballot but the result of the ballot should not be declared, and the presiding Officer of the meeting, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to forward the proceedings and the ballot papers to this Court immediately after the meeting was held on 13-9-1972.
(3.) ON 6-10-1972 an interim order was passed in this case after the sealed ballot box containing the ballot papers was opened. It was found that the ballot papers was opened. It was found that the ballot box contained 9 ballot papers in support of the resolution of no-confidence. This Court also observed that the case will have to be further heard in order too find out whether the three councillors who were alleged to oboe disqualified were entitled to cast vote in the said meeting.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.