Kapadia, J. - (1.) THE question raised in these civil appeals is - whether in counting "the whole number of members of the municipal board" in terms of rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of Non-Confidence against Chairman/Vice-Chairman) Rules 1974, nominated members have to be taken into consideration?
(2.) FOR sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 6133 of 2002. On 19.8.2000, elections were held for the Municipal Board, Sanchar, district Jalore. The appellant Ramesh Mehta was elected as C in accordance with the new industrial policy, the environmental restrictions have been imposed categorising different industrial projects into three categories i.e. Red, Orange and Green. In accordance with the environmental norms, in the new industri policy of 1990, the parties litigating were given option to submit their fresh project reports. Some of the parties neither provided necessary information on affidavit nor submitted their revised project reports conforming to the environmental norms. According to the Administration, allotments are possible only to such parties who fulfil the conditions shown in the prescribed affidavit and conform to environmental norms. On the basis of the information received in the course of the mutual negotiations for settlement, it is reported to this Court that 47 projects fall in red category and 4 projects fall in orange category. These projects cannot be considered to be set up as per the prevalent pollution norms. They can be considered if they submit fresh project reports which comply with the latest environmental/pollution norms and are viable in the existing marketing conditions. It has been stated on affidavit by the Administration that out of 35, consentees who have furnished the necessary information, only 23 consentees are fulfilling the laid down criteria. The names of those 23 allottees with full details are shown in paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit and the names and details of other 12 consentee allottees who did not furnish complete information and do not fulfil the requisite conditions are also given in the same paragraph of the affidavit. In the affidavit, there is a second category shown by the Administration as comprising such allottees from whom consent was not asked for as it was proposed to allot them the same size of plot measuring one kanal which they had applied for. In this category, from whom no consent was needed, are allottees of one kanal of plots. Thirteen applicants have been found to have given complete information and fulfilling requisite environmental norms. Their names are also mentioned under category-II of the affidavit.
(3.) WE have stated above that there is no justification for the non-consentees to claim parity with consentees. The third category pointed out by the Administration and some of which are also before us represented through their counsel are allottees of one kanal of plots. They are being offered same size of alternative plots and from them no consent was asked for. This category of allottees of one kanal of plot are also required to be accommodated in the available alternative plots. On this identification of 23 consentees and 13 allottees of one kanal of plot each, the Administration is justifiably required to consider their cases to allot them alternative plots available in industrial areas phase-I and phase-II as shown in their chart (Annexure-A) annexed to their affidavit. This chart (annexure-A) annexed to the affidavit shall be read as part of our order and is reproduced as under: ;