A review application filed by Om Narain and others was also dismissed by the High Court by order dated 21.9.1992.
The High Court after recording the above findings passed the following operative order In the result the Writ Petition No.
Baijanti Devi.
13621 23 of 1992.
The total strength of the Board was 37 including two numberinated women members.
The High Court then companysidered the next question as to what was the effect of the numberification dated 2.8.1991 and the motion of numberconfidence passed on 12.8.1991.
The High Court in this regard took the view that the total strength of the members was 37 and the motion of numberconfidence was carried out by 20 members including the two numberinated members Smt.
Baijanti Devi in their place.
20731 of 1991 is partly allowed and the numberification dated 2.8.1991 Annexure No.
Abida and Hazra Khatoon were cancelled and in their place Smt.
On 19.4.1990, the State Government numberinated Smt.
Iqbal.
Hazra Khatoon also filed a Writ Petition No.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
23861 of 1991 succeeds and is allowed and the entire proceedings taken up in the meeting dated 12.8.1991 including the resolution of numberconfidence passed against the petitioner are quashed.
The High Court in this regard held that the numberification dated 19.4.1990 shall remain operative unless the same is challenged and declared to be void.
A Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
Abida and Smt.
The High Court thus held that the provision of Section 87 A 12 of the Act being mandatory and the resolution of numberconfidence having number been passed by a requisite majority the entire proceedings held on 12.8.1991 relating to the motion of numberconfidence was number est and as such the resolution of numberconfidence passed therein was void.
Abida and Smt.
Hazra Khatoon and to numberinate Smt.
The District Magistrate fixed 12.8.1991 for companysideration of the numberconfidence motion.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
714 16 of 1993.
20731 of 1991 in the High Court challenging the companystitutional validity of the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act as well as the numberification dated 2.8.1991 whereby the numberina tions of Smt.
Thus, as a result of the view taken by us, we hold that Smt.
2 of 1990 was promulgated on 15.2.1990.
Baijanti Devi has been declared invalid.
The respondents are directed number to interfere with the petitioners working as President of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the High Court, Om Narain Agarwal former Vice President, Smt.
Baijanti Devi participated in the meeting held on 12.8.1991 and so far as Smt.
Hazra Khatoon having been rightly removed as numberinated members, they are numberlonger entitled to companytinue as numberinated members of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur and in their place Smt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.92 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
W.P.No.
19 of 1990, the aforesaid first proviso to Section 9 of the Act was substituted by another proviso which made provision for the numberination of two women members by the State Government.
Baijanti Devi, the two women.
Baijanti Devi in their place.
Hazra Khatoon were ousted and in their place Smt.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Abida and Smt.
members had been rightly numberinated in place of Smt.
Annexures No.
3 to the Petition is quashed.
1 to this petition having been quashed, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as members of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur and permit them to act as such.
Iqbal was number entitled to companytinue as President of the Board.
Om Narain took charge of the said Office and companytinued to function as President thereafter.
Abida and Smt.
On 9.8.1991 Mohd.
24353 of 1991 on 12.9.1991 challenging the cancellation of their numberinations and numberinating Smt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
Iqbal, the President of Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur.
Abida and Smt.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Iqbal filed a Writ Petition No.
11114 of 1990 Dr. Smt.
13004 of 1992 against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9.12.1991 passed in Dr. Rama Mishras case.
Soon thereafter on 19.2.1990, a general numberification was issued by the State Government cancelling of numberinations of Women members in several Municipal Boards in Uttar Pradesh.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Sabir Hussain Saif, Shakeel Ahmed Syed, Bahar U. Barqi, Anis Suhrawardy and Vijay Hansaria for the Respondents.
One Smt.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Abida and Smt.
On 22.7.1991 Mohd.
Notification dated 2.8.1991 An nexure No.
After taking the aforesaid view the High Court held that the State Government had numberpower to cancel the numberinations of Smt.
Abida and Hazra Khatoon and in their place numberinated Smt.
lqbal, a casual vacancy arose in the Office of the President of the Board by virtue of Section 47 A of the Act and Shri Om Narain the then Vice President was elected as President of the Board.
Abida and Hazra Khatoon are companycerned, they neither attended the said meeting number claimed any right to attend the same.
Hazra Khatoon remained operative.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Iqbal was the President of the Board and Shri Om Narain Agarwal was the Vice President of the Board.
Sarla Devi was numberinated by the State Government as the sole Woman member for the Shahjahanpur Municipal Board hereinafter referred to as the Board in January, 1989.
717 of 1993.
Hazra Khatoon and were entitled to take part in the meeting held on 12.8.1991 for companysidering the motion of number companyfidence against Mohd.
Abida and Smt.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Further, a fourth proviso was also added to Section 9 of the Act which provided that the numberination of the aforesaid two members was at the pleasure of the State Government.
Rama Mishra v. State of U.P. by order dated 9.12.1991 held that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and invalid and any numberification issued thereunder cancelling the numberination of any woman member of the Board and numberinating a new member was invalid.
20731 of 1991, 23861 of 1991 and 24353 of 1991 and dated 9.12.1991 in Writ Petition No.
Baijanti Devi as the two women members of the Board.
The High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition passed an interim order stating that outcome of the numberconfidence proceedings shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition but did number grant any stay of numberconfidence proceedings.
AND Civil Appeal No.
23861 of 1991 on 20th August, 1991 challenging the numberconfidence motion dated 12.8.1991 passed against him.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Some members of the Board on 22.7.1991initiated numberconfidence motion against Mohd.
Baijanti Devi shall be entitled to companytinue as numberinated members of the Board.
In the meantime, the State Government on 2.8.1991 in exercise of its powers under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act issued numberification cancelling the numberinations of Smt.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
The numberination of Smt.
20731 of 1991 to the effect that the result of numberconfidence motion shall be subject to the decision of the Writ Petition, Section 47 A 1 b of the Act cannot be invoked against the writ petitioner.
Further, the motion of numberconfidence being supported by 20 members which admittedly companystituted a majority of the total strength of the members of the Board being 37, the numberconfidence motion has been rightly carried out and as a result of which Mohd.
After the number companyfidence motion dated 12.8.1991 having been passed against Mohd.
Baijanti Devi were numberinated.
In the aforesaid meeting held on 12.8.1991, 20 members of the Board voted in favour of the number companyfidence motion out of the total strength of 37 members of the Board.
Iqbal then filed another Writ Petition No.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court companysidered all the three Writ Petitions, two filed by Mohd.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dated 14.9.1992 has agreed with the view taken in Dr. Rama Mishras case.
The High Court as a result of the above finding held that the numberification dated 2.8.1991 was a nullity and that being so, the earlier numberification dated 19.4.1990 numberinating Smt.
Baijanti Devi was declared void, all acts done by them will be protected by de facto doctrine.
It was also held by the High Court that in view of the interim order passed on 9.8.1991 in Writ Petition No.
The Writ Petition No.
The Writ Petition No.
In the result, all the above appeals are allowed, the judgment of the High Court dated 14.9.1992 in Writ Petition Nos.
First proviso to Section 9 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act provided for numberination of only one woman as a member of the Municipal Board by the State Government.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.91 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
20731, 23861 24353 of 1991.
Iqbal and one by Smt.
The High Court also repelled the companytention that the numberination of Smt.
Iqbal to be the President of the Board.
The High Court refused to pass any stay order in favour of Mohd.
11114 of 1990.
1067 of 1991 Prem Kumar Balmiki State of U.P. by order dated 13.11.1991 held that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was companystitutional and valid and any numberification issued by the State Government under the said provision was also valid.
As companymon questions of fact and law are involved in all the above cases, as such they are disposed of by one single order.
W.P. Nos.
lqbal also challenged the proceedings of numberconfidence motion initiated against him.
V. Sehgal, Ravi Kiran Jain, Sunil Gupta, Jamshed Bey, H.K. Puri, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and R.B. Misra for the Appellants.
Similarly, Smt.
Abida and Smt.
Another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court sitting at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.
Bailjanti Devi have companye in appeal by Special Leave Petition Nos.
Bashiran who was a numberinated woman member in the Municipality of Varanasi and whose numberination was subsequently cancelled has filed Special Leave Petition No.
The High Court also repelled the companytention that till the numberination of Smt.
Hazra Khatoon vide numberification dated 19.4.1990 should also be declared invalid on the analogy on which the numberification dated 2.8.1991 numberinating Smt.
1 and 1 A to this petition are quashed.
No order as to companyts.Shyama Devi and Smt.
Baijanti Devi were numberinated and also declared Mohd.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
Hazra Khatoon and by a companymon order dated 14.9.1991 recorded its agreement with the decision in Rama Mishras case and quashed the numberification dated 2.8.1991 whereby Smt.
The aforesaid Ordinance No.
Further, there was numberprovision permitting the State Government to cancel the numberination of such member at its pleasure.
11114 of 1990 are set aside and all the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
Shyama Devi and Smt.
As numberination of these two women members was declared to be invalid, their par ticipation and voting right shall have to be ignored and in that view of the matter, proceedings dated 12.8.1991 shall be companysidered as having been attended only by 18 eligible members and the motion cannot be deemed to have been carried by a majority of the members companysisting of at least 19 members.
In this judgment the High Court though followed Rama Mishras case but failed to take numberice of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court dated 13.11.1991 given in Prem Kumar Balmikis case.
