DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice of no confidence motion moved by 44 members of the Municipal Council, Bhilwara.
(2.) The petitioner's basic ground of challenging the notice dated 20.11.2019 issued by the District Collector, Bhilwara convening meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion is that the notice issued by the District Collector, Bhilwara is not accompanied with the motion of no confidence moved by such members. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inviting the Court's attention towards Rule 3 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of no confidence against the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 2017') submitted that a notice issued by the Collector is required to be accompanied by 'no confidence motion' moved by the members.
(3.) In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 07.05.1999 passed by Allahabad High Court rendered in Dr. Mahendra Pal Vs. Collector, District Hardoi and Ors. and submitted that the issue involved in the present case is exactly identical; the notice in question convening meeting on 28.11.2019 is not accompanied with the copy of the motion, hence, the meeting convened to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner is invalid and the same deserves to be declared as such. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that a simple look at Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 shows that it does not require proposed motion of no confidence to accompany the notice and that the rules are required to be read as they exist. Mr. Beniwal cited judgment dated 16.05.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Shweta Choudhary Vs. State and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1134/2019) in his support Whereas Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent-intervenor submits that a simple look at the Rules under consideration shows that the notice issued by the Collector is not required to be accompanied by the proposed motion. In support of his submission, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate has invited Court's attention towards the judgment dated 13.05.2004 passed by Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Ramu Ram Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Sriganganagar and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.558/2003) reported in RLW 2004(3) Raj. 1947 and submitted that Ramu Ram's case (supra) relates to no confidence motion under Panchayati Raj Act and the provisions are quite difference and the same cannot be applied in case of motion issued under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. He alternatively argued that even if it is assumed that a notice issued by the Collector is supposed to accompany the proposed motion, the same is only a technical breach, particularly when the substance of the motion has been incorporated in the notice. He argued that the requirement of enclosing the proposed motion with the notice, deserves to be ignored. ;