- (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the minutes of the proceedings of the special meeting dated 18. 12. 1992 by resolution No. 1 of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar may be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be directed not to allow the respondent No. 3 to attend and participate in the meetings of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar.
(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Sri Ganganagar and is an Advocate by profession. THE petitioner is a member of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar. THE petitioner was elected from Ward No. 18 in the general election held in the year 1988. THE petitioner was the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar before the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 18. 12. 1992. A first information report was lodged by the then Commissioner Shri Harish Chandra Garg against one Shri Mukesh Paliwal and Bhoormal, respondent No. 3 on 30. 11. 1988. THE respondent No. l initiated the proceedings under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as "the Act of 1959") and an order was passed on 7. 1. 1989 by which Shri Bhoormal Swami was suspended from the membership. Respondent No. 3 was elected as a member of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar from Ward No. 40 in the general elections held in the year 1988. THE suspension order dated 7. 1. 1989 was challenged by a writ petition by Bhoormal which came to be registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 227/1989 and this writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 16. 4. 1992. As a result of this dismissal the suspension order is in force. It is alleged that the then chairman Shri Ashok Grover was against the petitioner because the petitioner made certain complaints against him and he was also suspended and an enquiry was initiated against him. It is alleged that on 20. 9. 1991 a resolution was passed dissolving the Finance Committee to which the petitioner was Chairman. THE meeting of the Council was held on 18. 11. 1991 under the Chairmanship of said Shri Ashok Grover and in that meeting the agenda No. l was that the Finance Committee may be dissolved but that was not confirmed and the petitioner continued to remain as Chairman of the Finance Committee. A writ petition was also filed by Shri Ashok Grover and in that writ petition the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party respondent but the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in that writ petition but an order was passed that if the enquiry was not completed within one month against Shri Ashok Grover then he may be entitled to reinstatement. THE enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated period and the suspension order stood revoked. A notice was issued for a special meeting of the Council to be held on 18. 12. 1992. Since Shri Ashok Grover was very much annoyed with the petitioner, he moved a resolution for dissolution of the Finance Committee. One Shri Devendra Kumar Bansal proposed for dissolution of the Committee and constitution of a new Committee and Sarva Shri Dalbir Singh and Bhoormal seconded the resolution and the resolution was accordingly passed. It is alleged that the petitioner in the meeting stated that Shri Bhoormal cannot participate in the meeting because his suspension has not been revoked and the writ petition filed by him against his suspension has been dismissed. But without paying any heed to his contention, the resolution was passed and as a result of which the petitioner was relieved from the Chairmanship of the Finance Committee. THErefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that by the minutes of the meeting dated 18. 12. 1992 a new Finance Committee has been constituted. So far as this Finance Committee is concerned, it is being headed by Shri Badri Prasad Chitlangiya and six others. All those persons who have consisted of the Committee are not made parties to this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, it is also submitted that the decision has been taken by majority and as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1974 the majority resolution should prevail. A reference has also been made to Section 79 of the Act of 1959. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner did not object but he left the meeting. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Shri Bhoormal who was suspended from the membership of the Municipal Council by the order of the Government dated 7. 1. 1989 and he filed a writ petition which was dismissed as having become infructuous, therefore, he could not participate in the meeting as he was disqualified. Therefore, the whole proceedings of the meeting stand vitiated. In support thereof, learned counsel has invited lay attention to Leary vs. National Union of Vehicle Builders (1), Rameshwar Prasad vs. Collector, Bharatpur (2), Madan Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) and Vice Chancellor, Utkal University and others vs. S. K. Ghosh and others He has also read out a passage from Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings (Seventh Edition ). I have considered the matter and I find that in the meeting dated 18. 12. 1992 by a resolution a new Finance Committee headed by Shri Badri Prasad Chitlangiya has been constituted and Shri Badri Prasad and the new members of the Finance Committee are not parties before me. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to pass any order in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is true that much can be said regarding the participation of a person who is not qualified to participate in the meeting but I would not like to express any opinion on this issue as the further probe in the matter cannot be undertaken because the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, I uphold the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Singhvi and hold that this writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as the new Chairman and members of the Finance Committee are not parties before me, therefore, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner in the absence of proper parties.
(3.) HENCE, the writ petition is dismissed as the writ petition is not properly constituted because of non-joinder of necessary parties. The parties are left to bear their own costs. .;