Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order passed by the State Government on the 22nd of February 1956 dissolving the Municipal Board of Gonda be quashed. Petitioner No. 1 was elected a member of the Gonda Municipal Board in the general election held in October 1953 and petitioner No. 2 is an inhabitant of Gonda Municipality and is entitled to vote at the Municipal elections. The Gonda Municipal Board, as alleged by the petitioners, consists of twenty-five members and it is stated in the petitioners' affidavit that in the general election Sri Ishwar Saran was elected President of the Board, and nine out of twenty-five members were elected on the Congress ticket. On the 30th of October 1955 a motion of no confidence signed by fifteen members of the Board was handed over to the District Magistrate of Gonda who fixed the 2nd of December for the consideration of the motion. On the 2nd of December 1955 the motion of no-confidence was passed by the vote of fifteen members. On the same day the Judicial Officer sent by post to the President a copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the results of the voting thereon. The President took delivery of the said postal communication on or about the sixth or seventh of December 1955. Within three days of the receipt of the communication he sent his representation to the Government demanding the dissolution of the Board. By an order dated the 22nd of February 1956 the Government dissolved the Board. The order of the Government dissolving the Board was published in the Gazette which was received by the petitioner on the 29th of February 1956. The order of dissolution has been challenged by the petitioner on three grounds: firstly, on the ground that as the representation of the President demanding dissolution of the Board had been sent after three days of the sending of the communication by the Judicial Officer, the State Government had no power to dissolve the Board; secondly, that the provisions of Section 47-A are subject to the provisions of Section 30 of the Act and the reasons which have been given go beyond the provisions of Section 30; and, lastly, that the Board has been dissolved without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the dissolution and thus the order is against the principles of natural justice and is mala fide. A point has also been raised that Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act vests unlimited discretion in the Government to dissolve the Board and is therefore in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, But this point was not pressed in the arguments before me.
(2.) Section 47-A (1) of the Municipalities Act reads as follows:- "If a motion of non-confidence in the President has been passed by the board and communicated to the President in accordance with the provisions of Section 87-A, the President shall- (a) within three days of the sending of such communication, either resign his office or represent to the State Government to dissolve the board, stating his reasons therefor; and (b) on the expiry of three days after the date of sending of such communication, stop acting as President and shall be deemed to be incapacitated from functioning as President within the meaning of Section 55. (2) In the event of failure of the President to act in accordance with clause (a) of sub-Section (I) within the time allowed under that sub-section, the State Government shall remove him with effect from a date to be specified in the order and any person so removed shall notwithstanding anything in Section 43-A be not eligible for selection to fill any casual vacancy occurring before the general election next following. (3) If a representation has been made in accordance with sub-Section (1), the State Government may after considering the same either ask the President to resign or dissolve the board including the President. The argument of the petitioner is that in the present case the order dissolving the Board has been passed by the State Government under Section 47-A (3). Power under this sub-section could only have been exercised if a representation had been made by the President in accordance with sub Section (1) of this section and the representation under sub-Section (1) could only be made within three days of the sending of such communication. In the present case, the communication though received by the President on the 6th was sent earlier to him and admittedly the representation had been sent after three days from the date of the dispatch of the minutes and the copy thereof to the President, but it had certainly been made within three days of the date of the receipt. The contention was that the word "sending" in clause (a) of Section 47-A should not be given the same meaning as "communication of the no-confidence motion." Prior to the amendment of Section 47 by the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1955, the words in Section 47-A (1) were: "If a motion of non-confidence in the President has been passed by the Board and submitted to the State Government and communicated to the President in accordance with the provision of Section 87-A the President shall within ten days of such communication either resign or represent to the State Government to dissolve the Board, stating the reasons therefor." It was strenuously contended that the legislature purposely omitted the words "within ten days of such communication" and substituted thereon the words "within three days of the sending of such communication". The fallacy in the argument of the petitioner is that according to him the words "sending of such communication" means the date of dispatch. The process of sending can be said to continue till the communication is actually received by the President and it would not be doing any violence to the language of Section 47-A (1) if it is interpreted to mean that the President can send his representation any time within three days from the time of the receipt of the communication. The opening words of Section 47-A (1) also indicate that the three days are to start from the time of the communication of the resolution to the President. The words in Section 47-A (1) which I have already quoted have clearly laid down that the right of the President to send representation arises only if a motion of no-confidence has been passed by the members of the board and communicated to the President. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the word "communication" in the first part of Section 47-A(l) necessarily implies the receipt of the no-confidence motion by the President. It necessarily implies, therefore, that if the right of representation arises only on the receipt of the communication, clause (a) cannot be interpreted to take away that very right if the communication is received by the President after three days. Moreover, from the entire scheme of Section 47-A it is quite clear that in cases where the members have expressed their no-confidence in the President the right has been given to him to point out to the State Government that the Board itself should be dissolved and the votes of the electorate should be taken again to see whether the electorate has confidence in the members, who in their turn have expressed no-confidence in the President and it will be taking away that right if clause (1) (a) of Section 47-A is interpreted to mean that before a right accrues to the President to make such a representation the right has already come to an end. There is, therefore no force in the first contention raised by the petitioner. The next point which has been urged by the petitioner is that although power has been given to the State Government to dissolve the Board on a representation made by the President, the conditions on which such power can be exercised should be the same as mentioned in Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 to my mind gives the power to the State Government to dissolve the Board after taking into consideration the explanation of the President, if it is satisfied that the Board persists in making default in the performance of any duty or duties imposed on it by or under the Act or any other enactment or is exceeding or abusing its powers. Section 47-A on the contrary gives power to the President to seek the verdict of the electorate as regards the members themselves who have by a resolution expressed their non-confidence in the President. There may be cases where the members who have expressed their non-confidence in the President may themselves have lost the confidence of the electorate and there is a constant tussle going on between the President and the members and a situation thus may arise where the State Government may think it proper to ascertain whether the electorate itself retains confidence in the members who have expressed their non-confidence in the President. Section 47-A comes into operation only when a no-confidence resolution has been passed by a member as against the President while Section 30, as I have already pointed out, gives an independent power to the State Government in certain circumstances to dissolve the Board.
(3.) In my opinion, therefore, there is no force in this petition and it is rejected. In the circumstances of the case. I make no orders as to costs. Petition rejected.;