S.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan and the petitioner no. 2 is an elected member of the said Board. THE District Magistrate on 31st March, 1990, issued a notice convening a meeting of the Board to consider a motion of non- confidence in the petitioner no. 1 At that stage, the petitioners came to this Court by means of this petition. Today the position is that even though the motion of non-confidence in the petitioner no. 1 has been carried but the same has not been given effect to so far on account of the interim orders passed by this Court.
(2.) THE controversy in this petition is in a narrow compus. THE Board comprised of 22 elected members, two ex officio members, two nominated members and the President directly elected. Thus, the total membership was 27. On 5th March, 1989. the State Government nominated Smt. Nirmala Rani and Sri Aziz Ahmad as members of the Board. On 15th February, 1990, the Governor promulgated the U. P. Urban Local-Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990. On 19th February, 1990, the State Government by a notification rescinded the nomination of the two aforesaid members We may note at this stage thai: one of the prayers to the petition is that the aforesaid Ordinance may be declared as null and void. The question to be considered is as to what was the total membership of the Board on 31st March, 1990, or to be precise on the date when the notice together with the motion was presented to the District Magistrate. If the membership of the Board shrunk from 27 to 25 on account of the cancellation of the nomination of the two nominated members, the signing of the motion by 13 members was legal and valid. If, however, the act of rescinding the nomination of the two members did not result in reducing the total membership of the Board, then, the motion having been signed by not less than one half of the total members, the meeting could not be legally convened.
(3.) WE make take judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 was followed by U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1990 and that Ordinance was replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The Amending Act added yet another proviso after the third proviso to section 9 to the effect that member nominated, whether before or after the commencement of the said Ordinance, shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. The notification dated 19th February, 1990 was a general one as by means of it the State Government in the purported exercise of powers under the aforementioned proviso cancelled the nomination of all the nominated members of the Municipal Boards in the State. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S. K. Dhaon, J) is a member has in Writ Petition No. 11114 of 1990, Dr. (Smt.) Rama Misra v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 9-12-1991 held that the aforementioned proviso is ultra vires. This Court also quashed the notification dated 19tb February 1990. The effect of the said decision is that in the eye of law the two naminated members, who had been removed, continued to be the members of the Board and, therefore, the total membership of the Board will be deemed to be 27 on the relevant date.;