Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RM. MURUGAN versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RM. Murugan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu - W.P.NO.46355 OF 2002 [2003] RD-TN 80 (4 February 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 04/02/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA

W.P.NO.46355 OF 2002

and

W.P.M.P.No.67466 of 2002

W.V.M.P.Nos.4 and 203 of 2003

RM. Murugan ..Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by the Secretary

to the Local Administration

(Municipalities)

Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009

2.Regional Director of Municipalities

Tirunelveli 627 002

3.The District Collector of

Kanyakumari District

at Nagercoil

4.The Nagercoil Municipality

Rep. by its Commissioner

Nagercoil

5.Mrs. Meena dev

Chairman of Nagercoil Municipality

Nagercoil

6.V.Iyyappa Kumar

S/o Velayudham Pillai

15, Vellalar West Street

Vadasery

Nagercoil 1

7.D.Muthunayagam

S/o Daniel

8, water Tank Road

Nagercoil 1 ..Respondents RR6 and 7 impleaded as per

order dated 4.2.2003 in

W.P.M.P.No.186 of 2003

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Certiorari as stated therein.

For petitioner : Mr.N.Kalyanasundaram

Senior Counsel

for Mr.G.Sethuraman

For respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.V.Subbarayan

For respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. N.Paul Vasanthakumar :ORDER



Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.Even though the matter was listed for considering the question of stay and vacation of stay, since the questions involved were the same the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3.The petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 18.12.2002 in Na.Ka.No.16898/2002-A3 wherein the date was fixed for holding the meeting of the Nagercoil Municipality for considering the no-confidence motion against the Vice irman(the present petitioner).

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the provisions contained in Sections 40 and 40 A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,1920 and has contended that the notice of no-confidence motion is void bei n contravention of the aforesaid two provisions. The provisions contained in Sections 40 and 40-A are extracted here under.

'40.State Government to remove vice-chairman.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, remove any vice-chairman, who in their opinion wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act or any rules, by-laws, regulations or lawful order issued thereunder or abuses the powers vested in him.

(2)The State Government shall, when they propose to take action under sub-section (1), give the vice-chairman concerned an opportunity for explanation, and the notification issued under the said sub-section shall contain a statement of the reasons of the State Government for the action taken.

(3) Any person removed under sub-section (1) from the office of vice-chairman shall not be eligible for election to the said office until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the municipal council is published in the prescribed mann er, or the expiry of (one year from the date specified in such notification.)

40-A. Motion of no-confidence in vice-chairman-(1) subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the vice-chairman may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein. (2) Written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be fixed by the State Government, signed by such number of councillors as shall constitute not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the council, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made, shal l be delivered by any two of the councillors, signing the notice in person together, to the Regional Inspector of Municipalities.

(3)The Regional Inspector of Municipalities, shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the municipal office, at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice er sub-section (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the councillors notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor. (4) The Regional Inspector of Municipalities shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting the Regional Inspector of Municipalities is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the cou ncillors by the Regional Inspector of Municipalities under sub-section(5).

(5)If the Regional Inspector of Municipalities is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall not be later than thirty days the date appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the councillors of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting. (6)Save as provided in sub-section(4) and (5) a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section, shall not for any reason be adjourned.

(7) As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced, the Regional Inspector of Municipalities shall read to the council the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened, and declare it to be open for debate.

(8)No debate on any motion under this section shall be adjourned. (9)Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiry of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of two hour s the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the council.

(10)The Regional Inspector of Municipalities shall not speak on the merits of the motion, nor shall he be entitled to vote thereon. (11)A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Regional Inspector of Municipalities to the State Government.

(12)If the motion is carried with the support of not less than three-fifths of the sanctioned strength of the council, the State Government shall, by notification, remove the vice-chairman. (13)If the motion is not carried by such a majority as aforesaid, or if he meeting cannot be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same vice-chairman shall be received until after the expi f six months from the date of the meeting. (14)No notice of a motion under this section shall be received within six months of the assumption of office by a vice-chairman.

5.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions contained in Sections 40 and 40-A must be read together and unless the State Government has come to the conclusion as required under Section 40(2), the question of idering the motion of no-confidence under Section 40-A would not arise. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is difficult to accept. A perusal of the provisions makes ample clear that the two provisions are independent provisions, to be applied under different circumstances. Under Section 40, the State Government may remove the Vice-Chairman, if in the opinion of the State Government the vice-chairman has wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or disobeyed the provisions of the Act or any rules, by-laws, regulations or lawful order issued thereunder or abused the powers vested in him. However, before exercising such power, the State Government is required to give an opportunity to the concerned vice-chairman for explanation. More over, the notification or the order regarding the removal shall contain a statement of the reasons of the State Government. Such an action can be taken by the Government even if the Municipality has got full faith in the Vice-Chairman. On the oth er hand, Section 40-A is also a special and self-contained statutory provision wherein the councillors have been given the power to remove the Vice-Chairman by passing a no-confidence motion in the manner indicated in section 40-A. The question of consi dering the motion of no confidence as contemplated under Section 40-A is not dependent upon any action proposed to be taken by the State Government under Section 40. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioner is not acceptable

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the allegations made against the petitioner in the notice of no confidence motion are not correct. For the aforesaid purpose, he has relied upon Schedule III and contended that there been no dissent on the date of the meeting and on the basis of the baseless allegations, notice of no-confidence motion had been served.

7.This Court is not expected to give any opinion on this aspect. Whether the allegations made against the particular Vice-Chairman are correct or not is a matter for the Municipal council to decide in the meeting contemplated under Section 40-A. Me because, the allegations against the particular Vice-Chairman may appear to be frivolous or baselsss, there is no power vested in this Court to quash the no-confidence motion or to quash the notice regarding

no-confidence motion,.

8.For the above reasons, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned notice and the writ petition is accordingly rejected. All interim orders are vacated. No costs. W.P.M.P.No67466/2002, W.V.M.P.Nos.4 & 206 of 2003 are closed.

9.Since the meeting had been stayed by the order of the Court and such order is now vacated, the Regional Inspector of Municipality is now required to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion as required under Section 40-A (3).

Index:Yes

Internet:Yes

sal

To

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by the Secretary

to the Local Administration

(Municipalities)

Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009

2.Regional Director of Municipalities

Tirunelveli 627 002

3.The District Collector of

Kanyakumari District

at Nagercoil

4.The Nagercoil Municipality

Rep. by its Commissioner

Nagercoil

5.Mrs. Meena dev

Chairman of Nagercoil Municipality

Nagercoil




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.