2006 (12) TMI 547 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acceptance of resignation of two councillors of Bhuban NAC.
2. Validity of the No-Confidence Motion against the Chairperson of Bhuban NAC.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the acceptance of resignation of two councillors of Bhuban NAC
The petitioner challenged the Collector's order, which interfered with the acceptance of the resignation of two councillors of Bhuban NAC. The petitioner, the elected Chairperson, claimed that the resignations were submitted and accepted in a meeting held on 21.12.2005. However, the Collector and the Sub-Collector initiated an inquiry, alleging the acceptance violated Section 43(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1900. The councillors denied tendering their resignations, claiming forgery. The Court found that the resignation letters were not tendered "by writing under their own hands" as required by Section 43(1). Additionally, the acceptance of the resignations in the adjourned meeting without a proper agenda violated Rule 38 of the Orissa Municipal Rules. The Government had also cancelled the resolution accepting the resignations u/s 398 of the Orissa Municipal Act. The Court concluded that the acceptance of the resignations was invalid and dismissed W.P.(C) No. 1825 of 2006.

Issue 2: Validity of the No-Confidence Motion against the Chairperson of Bhuban NAC
The petitioner challenged the notice issued by the Collector for convening a meeting to record a No-Confidence Motion against her. Initially, a requisition for a No-Confidence Motion was annulled on 20.10.2005 due to lack of quorum. A subsequent requisition led to a meeting on 26.12.2005, which was stayed by the Court. Another requisition led to a meeting on 20.2.2006, where the No-Confidence Motion was passed by a 2/3rd majority. The petitioner argued that the resolution violated Section 54(1)(ii) of the Orissa Municipal Act, which prohibits moving a No-Confidence Motion more than once in a calendar year. The Court interpreted "calendar year" as 365 days and held that the annulled resolution on 20.10.2005 did not constitute a "moved" resolution. Therefore, the resolution passed on 20.2.2006 was valid. The Court dismissed W.P.(C) No. 2090 of 2006.

Conclusion:
Both writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 1825 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 2090 of 2006, were dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated.