State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 2 S.C.C. 165, relied on.
Anil Kumar Gupta and A.K. Goel for the Respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2832 of 1990.
2425 of 1992.
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991 1 SCC 212, distinguished.
Statutory arbitrariness, arising out of application of Sections 47 A and 87 A of the Act to the Presidents of the Municipalities either elected by the Board or electorate as irrational and invalid of Article 14 of the Constitution was, yet, another ground of attack.
Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. Validity of the numberconfidence motion passed, on 28th March 1990, under Section 87 A of the U.P. Municipalities Act in brief the Act by the Board against the appellant, who was elected in November 1988 by the electorate, directly under Section 43 2 of the Act, as President of Rae Bareilly City Municipal Board , having population of less than one lakh, was assailed as violative of the democratic companycept of removal or recall of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him, in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Writ Petition field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Reduction of period from two to one year during which a vote of number companyfidence companyld be tabled against a President by ordinance issued in 1990 which later became Act was challenged for absence of any discernible and reasonable principle and resorted to as spoil system thus companystitutionally invalid.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No.
