9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the no-confidence motion against the President of Kalol Municipality. 2. Jurisdiction of the Collector to conduct an inquiry regarding the no-confidence motion. 3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the Collector's inquiry. 4. Appropriateness of the High Court entertaining a writ petition involving disputed facts. 5. Adequacy of cross-examination and reliance on affidavits by the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the No-Confidence Motion: The Gujarat High Court quashed the Collector's order dated June 9, 1973, which declared that the no-confidence motion against the appellant was not validly passed. The High Court held that the appellant had ceased to be President since May 10, 1973, and was an usurper of the office. The High Court directed the Collector to hold fresh elections for the President of Kalol Municipality. The High Court found that 17 councillors had voted for the no-confidence motion in the meeting held on May 6, 1973, thus meeting the two-thirds majority requirement under Section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. 2. Jurisdiction of the Collector: The High Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the no-confidence motion was validly passed and whether a vacancy had arisen in the office of the President. The High Court quashed the Collector's order on this ground. 3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The High Court found that the Collector's inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The inquiry was vitiated by a flagrant breach of natural justice as interested persons were not heard. The High Court concluded that the Collector's order was void due to this violation. 4. Appropriateness of the High Court Entertaining a Writ Petition: The appellant contended that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition due to disputed questions of fact and should have referred the parties to a separate suit. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that no such plea was taken in the return filed by the appellant. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy, and the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues of both fact and law. The Court held that the High Court's discretion to entertain the writ petition was sound and in conformity with judicial principles. 5. Adequacy of Cross-Examination and Reliance on Affidavits: The appellant argued that the High Court should have permitted cross-examination of all deponents who filed affidavits. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the High Court was justified in selecting crucial deponents for cross-examination. The Court found no prejudice caused to any party by the High Court's procedure. The appellant also contended that deponents should have been examined-in-chief before cross-examination. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's own application only requested cross-examination and not examination-in-chief. The Court found that the deponents were examined-in-chief and then cross-examined, and there was no legal flaw in this procedure. The Court also held that the High Court was not precluded from considering affidavits of deponents who were not cross-examined. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the High Court's findings and procedures. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the respondent continued to act as the President of the municipality subject to the result of the appeal.
|
