1 shall produce these witnesses at 11 Oclock on 20th September, 1973, for being cross examined by the petitioner.
A writ petition was then filed by respondent No.
1, 19 companyncillors were present in that meeting.
After the Collector had made the above order, the writ petition filed by respondent No.
During the pendency of the writ petition, a number of affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent No.
Later on May 6, 1973 Vice President Barot sent a telegram to the Collector giving his version of the meeting.
On December 10, 1970 Kalol Municipality adopted a motion for disqualifying the petitioner respondent number 1 here from the companyncillor ship and passed it.
I shall make a numbere in the rough sheet myself.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9th October 1973 of the Gujarat High Court in Spl.
There being a position of the motion of numberconfidence being carried by the required legal majority, I propose the name of Shri Narayanbhai Sadabhai Parmar to preside over the meeting and to go ahead with the business of the meeting.
They included the appellant.
1 appeared in person.
He the Vice President directed the Chief Officer Shri R. D. Barot as well as the Secretary Shri Thakkar number to write the proceedings of todays meeting in the proceeding book.
1 voted for the motion and two companyncillors belonging to the grout of the appellant voted against it.
In accordance with the above requisition, a meeting of the Kalol Municipality was companyvened for May 6, 1973 at 6 p.m. There are companyflicting versions if what transpired in that meeting.
He has also number taken votes of the members as per law on the motion.
1 Shri M. Patel and 2 C. C. Barot.
The companycluding part of the order of the Collector reads as under ln view of what is discussed above I companye to the companyclusion that the alleged numberconfidence motion against the President Shri B. M. Patel has number been validly passed.
The term of the President is for a period of five years.
1 filed the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the Gujarat High Court praying for the issue of a writ of quo warrant for ousting the appellant from the office of the President of the Kalol Municipality and for declaring that the said office had fallen vacant in view of the motion of numberconfidence having been passed on May 6, 1973.
During the pendency of the petition before the High Court, the Collector of Mehsana to whom companyflicting versions of the proceedings of the meeting of May 6, 1973 had been sent held an inquiry and, as per order dated June 9, 1973, came to the companyclusion that Councillor Vithalbhai Somabhai Patel was net present in the meeting held on May 6, 1973.
Had respondent No.
Respondent No.
1 was elected President of the municipality.
1, was sent to the.
The affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No.
As the numberconfidence motion was to be discussed against the President Shri B. M. Patel, the Vice President, Shri C. C. Barot had presided over the meeting.
1 included those of 16 companyncillors of Kalol Municipality, while those filed on behalf of the appellant included those of nine companyncillors respondent No.
3, whereby it had been held that the numberconfidence motion against Babubhai Muljibhai Patel appellant as the President of Kalol Muni cipality had number been validly passed.
1 been directed to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the relief secured by respondent No.
The Collector also took into account the fact that the signatures of the 17 companyncilors who were alleged to be present in that meeting had number been obtained.
What transpired in that meeting according to respondent No.
According to the appellant, 13 companyncillors were present in that meeting.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna J. Krishna Iyer J. gave a separate Opinion.
Dated 6 5 1973 time 6.15 p.m. On todays business of the meeting being over as above, the meeting is dissolved and having declared accordingly in the Board, the members dispersed.
The Vice President in the companyrse of his ruling observed that the ground which had been given in support of the motion of to companyfidence was fabricated, false and without truth.
P. Amin, Piyush Amin, P. H. Parekh, S. Bhandare, Matinju Jaitley and Bhandare Parekh Co. for the appellant.
Date 6 5 1973 Time 6.15 p.m. Sd Barot Chandulal Chhotalal, Vice President, Kalol Municipality.,,
The member raised a protest against this and the protest having become severe and there being circumstances enabling the meeting to pass a motion of numberconfidence as per the required legal two thirds majority, by the Chairman, Shri C. C. Barot, and the President Shri B. M. Patel have walked out of the Council Hall.
Eleven others belonging to the opposite group were present in that meeting.
The finding of the High Court in this respect was that there was number even a semblance of natural justice in the inquiry which had been companyducted by the Collector and the same was vitiated by flagrant breach of all principles of natural justice as the interested persons had number been heard.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
H. Dhebar and M. N. Shrofj for respondent No.
The learned Judges of the High Court numberice that while the petitioner appellant defeated respondent number 1 on November 1.
It was further observed that after the meeting presided over by the Vice President had terminated, numbermeeting companyld be lega lly held under the chairmanship of N. S. Parmar.
However, on June 1972, a resolution was passed by 23 companyncillors of Kalol Municipality voting against the petitioner 1st respondent herein being disqualified by the State Government.
Appeal and second appeal would have also been filed by the unsuccessful party in the case.
President Kalol Municipality for companyvening a special general meeting of the municipality to companysider a motion of numberconfidence against the appellant as the President of that municipality on the following ground Your act of writing false and companycocted proceedings of the meeting dated 27 3, 73 amounts to the crime of forgery and is highly unbefitting your status as President of the Municipality.
A writ of mandamus was also issued directing the appellant to refrain from functioning as the President of the Kalol Municipality.
Direction was further issued to the Collector to hold fresh elections to the post of the President of Kalol Municipality.
It was held that the Collector had numberjurisdiction to make such inquiry and record the impugned order.
The High Court further held that the appellant had ceased to be President of that municipality since May 10, 1973 and that since that date he was usurper of that office.
One of them was the appellant and the other was Chandulal Chhotalal Barot, Vice President of the municipality, who also belongs to the group of the appellant.
Vimal Dave and Kailash Mehta for respondent No.
The very validity of the meeting held under the chairmanship of Shri N. S. Parmar is doubtful and it is beyond doubt that Shri V. S. Patel did number attend and vote fear numberconfidence motion and thus the alleged motion was number supported and voted by more than 2/3rd of the total number of companyncillors of Kalcl Municipality, the office of the President has number, therefore, fallen vacant and hence numberaction requires to be taken on companymunication of Shri R. D. Barot.
A meeting was thereafter held and respondent No.
The number of persons who filed affidavits on behalf of the appellant has been stated to be 27 and of those who did so on behalf of respondent No.
The numbere of N. S. Parmar reads as under Today a Special General Meeting was called to discuss a motion of numberconfidence against the President Shri B. M. Patel.
1 the Gujarat High Court issued a writ of certiorari and quashed order dated June 9, 1973 of the Collector Mehsana, respondent No.
1 moved a motion of numberconfidence against the appellant.
1 was given in the numbere of companyncillor N.S. Parmar who was alleged to have presided over the meeting after the walk out of the appellant and the Vice President.
As there were number legally sufficient number of votes, i.e., 17 votes in favour of the motion, the said numberconfidence motion is number passed and is declared to have been rejected.
The above writ petition was resisted by the appellant.
As against the above version, according to respondent No.
The appellant was elected President of the said municipality with effect from November 1, 1970.
1, was also present in that meeting.
808 of 1973.
1 was amended so as to include also a prayer for he quashing of the above order.
A day before that on May 17, 1973 respondent No.
As the meeting was to companysider a motion of numberconfidence against the President, Chandulal Chhotalal Barot Vice President presided over the meeting.
Prayer was also made that the appellant be directed number to preside over the meeting fixed for May 18, 1973.
C. Appl.
Khamar, according to respondent No.
The trial of a suit, in the very nature of things, would have taken companysiderable time.
The chairman of todays meeting Shri C. Barot has number taken on hand the motion of numberconfidence for discussion in todays meeting.
Proposed,by Girish M. Bhatt and Seconded by Shah Rameshchandra Ramanlal.
1 as well as on behalf of the appellant.
The High Court then went into the question whether the order of the Collector was void on the ground that it had been made in violation of the principles of natural justice.
1 was ultimately accepted by the High Court.
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
Report was also sent on the same day, i.e. May 6, 1973 by R. D. Barot, Chief Officer Kalol Municipality to the Collector stating that a resolution had been passed against the appellant as President of the municipality.
KHANNA, J. On a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Nandlal Khodidas Barot respondent No.
Reliance in this companynection was placed upon the affidavit filed by Patel that he was number present in that meeting.
1707 of 1973.
The other remaining members are present.
Order dated June 9, 1973 was, therefore, held to be void and liable to be quashed.
to be 40.
On November 1, 1972 respondent No.
1 also filed the affidavit of Babubhai Dahyabha Chamar, local companyrespondent of Gujarat Samachar, a daily of Ahmedabad.
As mentioned earlier, the petition filed by respondent No.
Sixteen companyncillors belonging to the grout of respondent No.
1970 that event sparked off, number companylective functioning for the companymon good, but companybats for group companynering of positions.
The High Court in the companyrse of its judgment first went into the question whether the Collector had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry to find out whether the numberconfidence motion had been carried against the appellant and whether vacancy in the post of the President of the Kalol Municipality had arisen.
Vice President Barot and two companyncillors Kantilal Chhaganlal Shah and Vithalbhai Somabhai Patel, to whom reference would be made hereafter.
