S.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) The Petitioner, the Pramukh of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, challenges the minutes of meeting of the Nagar Mahapalika held on 21st May, 1991, in accordance with Section 15-A read with Section 16 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The District Judge, Allahabad, the respondent no. 2, presided over the said meeting.
(2.) The Presiding Officer recorded that on account of the turbulence in the meeting it became impossible to proceed further and he, therefore, adjourned the meeting. He also recorded that the voting did not appear to be fair and just and impersonation too could not be ruled out. He. therefore. ordered 'repoll' and requested the Commissioner of the Allahabad Division to fix another date for "iepolling-'.
(3.) It will be convenient to set out the report of the District Judge, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition. Its material contents are these. The meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence in the petitioner as convened by the Commissioner commenced on 21st May, 1991, at 11.00 A M. in the Committee room of the Nagar Mahapalika. At 11.30 A M. 39 members, including the petitioner, were present. Between 11 00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M. some persons came inside the Committee room while some other persons went out. There was no police arrangement. The members did not pay any heed to the appeal to take their seats. Between 11 00 A.M. and 11.40 A M. members and others persons were going outside the Committee room and coming inside. The discussion on the motion commenced at 11.30 A.M. At 11.40 A M. an application was filed by one Sri Lalji stating therein that since the quorum was not complete the proceedings may be stopped. Section 16 of the Adhiniyam did not provide for any quorum at the stage of commencement of the meeting. It merely provided that the motion of no-confidence will be deemed to have been carried only if it had been passed by majority of more than half of the members of the Mahapalika. Since the discussion was going on and the stage for voting had not arrived, the proceedings of the meeting could not be interrupted for want of quorum. During the course of the discussion 9 more persons came inside the Committee room. In all 48 members were present. In the absence of any proper arrangements members were coming inside and going outside. At 12.15 P. M. 48 members were present. Ballot papers were distributed to all of them. Two members complained of non-receipt of ballot papers. Since all the members had been supplied with ballot papers, the request of the 2 members was refused. The account of the ballot papers given by B. K. Dwivedi, the Secretary of the Mahapalika showed that 49 ballot papers bad been issued though only 48 members were present. In the circumstances, repoll was directed. No one objected to this procedure. Another ballot box was brought in and a fresh ballot paper was given to the petitioner. He agreed to the arrangement and cast his vote. The second ballat paper was given to one Sri Atul Kumar. At this stage, the petitioner raised an objection that repolling should not be held. A number of persons came from outside and objected to the repolling. They appeared to be agitated. Two factions were shouting slogans. Some of them stood on the tables and indulged in slogan shouting at the top of their voice. The atmosphere became surcharged. It became impossible to proceed further. The meeting was, therefore, adjourned. The Commissioner is being requested to convene a fresh meeting on another date. He is also being requested to ensure that proper police arrangements are made. Without the police force it will be impossible to hold the meeting and get the polling done. In all there were 48 members. However, the petitioner, Sri Quamaruddin and Sri Ashok Kumar Sonkar refused to sign the attendance register. The Presiding Officer was informed that some yellow substance had been poured inside the ballot box. The voting did not seem to be just and fair. Impersonation could not be ruled out. Sri Jamuna Prasad had complained that the supporters of the petitioner were preventing the Sabhasads from coming inside the Committee room.;