TATIA, J. - (1.) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/07 has been filed by Leela Sharma, Ex. Chairperson of the Municipal Board,rawatbhata to challenge the No Confidence Motion dated 8-1-2007 by which she was unseated from the post of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Rawatbhata.
(2.) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2007 has been preferred by Banshi Lal, Ex-Vice Chairman of the same Municipal Board, Rawatbhata to challenge the same No Confidence Motion dated 8-1-2007 by which he was removed from the post of Vice Chairman, Municipal Board, Rawatbhata. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner of the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/2007 was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata. The petitioner of the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2007 was elected as Vice-Chairman of the same Municipal Board. The total number of the Municipal Board are 25, three are nominated members and one is local M. L. A. and is Member of the Board by virtue of his office. Out of above Members, 14 Members of the Board submitted two notices of intention to make the Motion of No Confidence in Chairman and Vice-Chairman-the petitioners on 11-12-2006. Initially this notice was submitted before the Addl. District Collector, Chittorgarh, who directed to put the notice before the District Collector, Chittorgarh on the same day. On 14-12-2007, the learned District Collector, Chittorgarh, after considering the said notice, observed that since the copy of Motion of No Confidence, which is proposed by the Members, has not been annexed with the notice, therefore, no date can be fixed for consideration of any No Confidence Motion. Immediately on 14-12-2007 itself, a copy of the resolution which was dated 13-12-2006 signed by 14 Ward Members, was submitted before the learned District Collector, Chittorgarh. On receipt of the Motion of No Confidence against the Chairman and Vice- Chairman-the petitioners, the District Collector decided to issue notice for consideration of No Confidence on 15-12-2006. The notices were sent to the 26 Members who were eligible to vote on No Confidence Motion. However, a notice was also issued to the Member of the Parliament but that was withdrawn by the District Collector, Chittorgarh vide letter dated 6-1-2007 on the ground that since the Municipal Board of Rawatbhata is neither a Council nor a Corporation, therefore, the Member of the Parliament is not Member of the Municipal Board and, therefore, the notice issued to the Member of Parliament by which the meeting was conveyed for consideration of No Confidence Motion, is withdrawn. The meeting was convened on schedule date 8-1-2007 and it was attended by total 19 Members of the Board. Out of 19 Members, 18 Members were elected Members and one is Member of Legislative Assembly. All the 18 Members voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion and the M. L. A did not cast his vote. In view of the said decision of the Members of the Board for carrying No Confidence Motion against both the petitioners, the Collector's representative, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata declared that the Motion stands carried. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petitions as originally submitted, is that there are 25 members of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata representing 25 Wards of the municipal area of Rawatbhata. As per law, the Member of the Parliament and the Member of the Legislative Assembly of Rawatbhata area are also Members of the Board. Therefore, according to original pleading of the petitioners, total strength of the Board is thus 27. (In rejoinder the petitioners increased this number 27 to 29 by adding 3 nominated Members and deleted M. P.) According to both the petitioners, few members of the Municipal Board had political grudge against the petitioners who instigated other members of the Board against both the petitioners for bringing Motion of No Confidence against Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. The petitioners' contention is that none of the Member of the Municipal Board ever shown his intention for bringing No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson and there was no dissatisfaction towards the work and discharge of duties by the petitioners as Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson of the Municipal Board. The petitioners, without disclosing the date, when he came to know about submitting representation before the Collector by the Members of the Municipal Board, stated that the petitioners came to know that few Members of the Municipal Board submitted a representation before the District Collector on 13-12-2006 purporting to be intention to make Motion of No Confidence against the petitioners-Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata. The petitioners came to know that on 15-12-2006, the District Collector, Chittorgarh issued notice to convene meeting of the Members of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata for consideration of said Motion of No Confidence. Both the petitioners received the notice dated 15-12-2006 issued by the District Collector and copy of the proposed Motion of No Confidence in them. The petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition stated that notice was given to all 27 Members of the Board. Both the petitioners admitted that the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata was nominated to preside over the meeting on behalf of the Collector and further stated that the meeting was held as per schedule in meeting hall of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata on 8-1-2007 at 11 a. m. and. According to both the petitioners, in the Motion of No Confidence, there were no allegations and/or grounds mentioned disclosing grounds for the No Confidence of the Members in the petitioners. Hence, there was nothing which the petitioners could have clarified to the Members during consideration of the Motion of No Confidence. Both the petitioners did not attend the said meeting and they have not given any reason for not attending the meeting in which the Motion of No Confidence carried with the vote of all Members present. According to the petitioners, as per Rules, the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974]the District Collector was under obligation to consider whether the notice is in appropriate form as submitted under the Rules of 1974 and whether the notice discloses grounds/reasons for resentment giving rise to 'no Confidence' in Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson. On finding that notice discloses grounds/reasons for resentment giving rise to 'no Confidence' in Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson then only the District Collector could have decided to convene the meeting and could have issued notice for consideration of No Confidence Motion by the Members of the Municipal Board. According to the petitioners, if there is no such material is furnished along with the notice to the Members then there will be nothing to be considered by the Members in the meeting and consequently, there cannot arise any question of vote in favour or against Motion of No Confidence in Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson. It is further submitted in the writ petitions that in that situation, the Chairperson/vice-Chairperson would have also nothing to demonstrate to the Members or could have clarified/justified so as to appeal against the Motion. According to the petitioners, the District Collector, Chittorgarh ignoring all these aspects, mechanically issued notice Annx. P. 1 dated 15-12-2006. It is further pleaded that the notice Annex. P. 1 was not served upon all the Members of the Municipal Board but to genuine apprehension of the petitioners, it was got served upon only those Members who assured support for the Motion against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, this fact is fortified from the fact that no other than 18 Members of the Municipal Board who gave their vote in favour of Motion, only local M. L. A. reached to attend the meeting. In view of the fact that all 18 Members gave their vote in favour of No Confidence Motion, therefore, the petitioners have apprehension that the notice Annx. P. 1 was not served upon other Members who were not in favour of the Motion of No Confidence against the petitioners.
(3.) IT will be worthwhile to mention here that both the petitioners who were served with the notice without disclosing any reason why they did not attend the said meeting which was convened for consideration of No Confidence Motion against them, merely stated that the petitioners did not attend the meeting. The one of the reasons which can be gathered from the pleadings of the petitioners is that since the notice Annex. P. 1 did not disclose any ground for No Confidence of Members in the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners could not have said anything nor could have given any explanation. Though it is not stated as such in the writ petitions and if this was not the reason then there is no reason given by the petitioners why they did not attend the meeting dated 8-1-2007 wherein the No Confidence Motion was carried against them. Be it as it may be, as per the petitioners, the petitioners when came to know about the Motion carried against them, they approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata for obtaining the copies of the proceedings of the meeting of No Confidence Motion dated 8-1-2007 but that was not provided to both the petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners have challenged notice Annx. P. 1 dated 15-12-2006 as well as carrying of Motion of No Confidence against both the petitioners but without submitting the resolution passed carrying the Motion of No Confidence. One of the Members of the Municipal Board Ganga Ram submitted an application for becoming party in the writ petition No. 221/07, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15-2-2007. One Dheeraj Panwar and another Lekh Chand submitted applications for becoming party but they withdrew their applications and, therefore, they are not impleaded as party in the writ petition. ;