Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) ON 28 -4 -1967, the Petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Hasaya, district Aligarh. On 8 -5 -1968, the Respondents 3 to 7 served a notice on the District Magistrate requesting him to hold a meeting of the Committee to consider a motion of no -confidence against the Chairman. The Munsif, Hathras district Aligarh was appointed to preside at the meeting. The meeting was held on 26 -8 -1968. The Petitioner, who was the Chairman, attended the meeting. Besides him, five other members also attended. The motion was put to vote. Five members voted in favour of the motion. The Petitioner's case is that the learned Munsif did not permit the Petitioner to vote though he wanted to vote against the motion. The Munsif in his report held that the Town Area Committee consisted of nine members. The Chairman was not an elected member. As such he has no right to vote. Five members voted for the motion. This was more than half of the total membership of the Town Area Committee. Consequently, he declared the motion to have been carried out. Aggrieved, the Chairman has come to this Court.
(2.) SECTION 5 of the Town Areas Act, 1914, says that the Committee shall be established for each Town Area. The Committee is to consist of: (a) The Chairman (b) The elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen as the State Government, by notification in the official gazette specify. Section 8 -A(2) of the Act provides: The Chairman shall be elected by the electors of the town area at an election held simultaneously with the general election of members of the Committee. In the case of a vacancy, a fresh Chairman has to be similarly elected by the electors. It will be seen that the Chairman is as much elected as are the other members. Under Section 5 the Chairman is also a constituent part of the Committee just as the elected members are. He would also be a member of the Committee. Section 87 -A of the Municipalities Act, which has been extended to apply to the Town Areas, requires that a motion of non -confidence should be passed by a majority of more than half of the total membership of the Committee. The total membership could not be calculated by excluding the Chairman, because he is also a member of the Committee. It is admitted that if the Chairman is also counted, the membership will stand at the figure of ten and more than half thereof would be six. Actually five members voted in favour of the non -confidence motion. The motion could not, therefore, be declared to have been carried. As far back as 1957 this Court decided in Abdul Aziz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : AIR 1958 All. 109 that "the word 'member' is not defined either in the UP Municipalities Act or in the UP Town Areas Act. So far as the latter Act is concerned, there is no good reason to limit that expression to those persons only who have been elected as members of the Town Areas Committee. Further, the various provisions of the UP Town Areas Act and Section 87 -A UP Municipalities Act, as applied to the Town Areas lead to the conclusion that the expression 'members of the committee' includes the Chairman of the Committee as well." It is thus settled law that the Chairman of the Committee is deemed to be a member of the Committee and the strength of the Committee has to be calculated after including him. From that point of view the motion actually failed.
(3.) THE learned Munsif has erroneously held that the Chairman is not an elected member and as such he has no right to vote. He misconceived the legal position. The Chairman was elected by the entire electorate, though he was elected as a Chairman and not as a member. The Munsif was in error in disallowing the Chairman from voting or in excluding him from the membership of the Committee.;