- (1.) On a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Nandlal Khodidas Barot respondent No.1 the Gujarat High Court issued a writ of certiorari and quashed order dated June 9, 1973 of the Collector, Mehsana, respondent no.3, whereby it had been held that the no confidence motion against Babubhai Muljibhai Patel appellant as the President of Kalol Municipality had not been validly passed. The High Court further held that the appellant had ceased to be President of that municipality since May 10, 1973 and that since that date he was usurper of that office. A writ of mandamus was also issued directing the appellant to refrain from functioning as the President of the Kalol Municipality. Direction was further issued to the Collector to hold fresh elections to the post of the President of Kalol Municipality. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
(2.) Kalol Municipality in district Mehsana has 25 councillors. The appellant was elected President of the said municipality with effect from November 1, 1970. The term of the President is for a period of five years. On November 1, 1972 respondent No.1 moved a motion of no confidence against the appellant Sixteen councillors belonging to the group of respondent No.1 voted for the motion and two counciloors belonging to the group of the appellant voted against it. The Vice President of the Municipality who was in the chair declared that the no confidence motion had failed for want of two-thirds majority of the total number of councillors. In his view, 17 councillors out of 25 constituted the requisite two-thirds majority contemplated by Section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (Gujarat Act No. 34 of 1964) which reads as under: "36. Motion of no confidence. (1) Any councillor of a municipality who intends to move a motion of no confidence against its President or Vice-President may give a notice thereof, in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government, to the municipality. If the notice is supported by not less than one-third of the total number of the then councillors of the municipality, the motion may be moved. (2) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of the then councillors of the municipality, the President or, as the case may be the Vice President shall cease to hold office after a period of three days from the date on which the motion is carried unless he has earlier resigned; and thereupon the office held by him shall be declared to be vacant. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, the President, or/as the case may be, the Vice President shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence against him is discussed by he shall have the right to speak in or otherwise take part in the proceedings of such meeting (including the right to vote)". A writ petition was then filed by respondent No.1 in the Gujarat High Court to challenge the above ruling. A Division Bench of the High Court after referring to Section 36 of the Act held as pr judgment dated April 2, 1973 that a motion of no confidence could be said to have been carried in case of a municipality consisting of 25 councillors if at least 17 councillors voted for such a motion.
(3.) On April 21, 1973 a requisition signed by 16 councillors, including respondent No.1 was sent to the President Kalol Municipality for convening a special general meeting of the municipality to consider a motion of no confidence against the appellant as the President of that municipality on the following grounds: "Your act of writing false and concocted proceedings of the meeting dated 27-3-1973 amounts to the crime of forgery and is highly unbefitting your status as President of the Municipality".;