- (1.) On February 1, 1993, we granted leave to appeal in the Special Leave Petition and allowed the Civil Appeal setting aside the Judgment and Order of the Allahabad High Court dated 12th August, 1993 in Writ Petition 12911 (M / B) of 1990. We indicated that the reasons for our order will be given later. The following are the relevant facts and reasons for our order: First respondent, Ram Niwas Agrawal, was the President of the Nagar Palika, Sultanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A motion expressing want of confidence in him was moved by the requisite number of members. A meeting of the Nagar Palika was convened on December 14, 1990 to consider the motion. As required by Section 87-A(4) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the District Judge, Sultanpur nominated Sri Vishrarn Singh, First Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur to preside over the meeting. The minutes of the meeting recite the following facts : When the meeting commenced, sixteen members including the President were present besides. Sri Ram Dular Yadav, M.L.C., who claimed to be an ex-officio member of the Nagar Palika, His claim was considered and rejected by the Presiding Officer. Three women, nominated as members by the Government on the previous day, presented themselves and sought participation in the meeting. A dispute was raised with respect to their right to participate in the meeting on the ground that by that date they had not taken the oath of allegiance. The Presiding Officer allowed the said nominated members to participate in the meeting and to vote on the motion. The voting figures were seventeen (including three votes of three nominated members) in favour of the motion and only one, viz., that of the President himself against the motion. The Presiding officer declared the motion to have been passed by the majority inasmuch as the total membership of the Board (Nagar Palika) was twenty-seven. He opined that even if the total membership is taken as twenty-eight (including the membership of aforesaid M.L.C.) still the motion must be deemed to have been passed.
(2.) The President of the Nagar Palika (first respondent in this Appeal) challenged the validity of the said proceedings by way of a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. A Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the following three grounds: (1) The votes of three nominated members are liable to be excluded because they bad not taken the oath of allegiance till then. Unless they took the oath of allegiance, they were not entitled to take their seat in the Nagar Palika or to vote. However, for the purpose of total membership, the said three members must be counted, which means that in determining the total strength of the Nagar Palika on that day, these three members must also be taken into account. (2) The Presiding Officer was In error in rejecting the claim of Sri Ram Dular Yadav, M , L.C. to be a member of the Nagar Palika. He must be deemed to be a member. With him, the total membership goes up to twenty eight. (3) At the meeting convened to consider the motion of no-confidence, two Executive Officers, viz., Additional District Magistrate (F and R) and Additional District Magistrate (E) were present. No acceptable reason has been assigned for their presence within the halt where the meeting was going on. "It was done with mala fide intention which would vitiate the proceeding".
(3.) The correctness of the above grounds is questioned in this appeal.;