Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner who was elected as Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao (hereinafter referred to as "Nagar Panchayat") in the election held in the month of October, 2006, has prayed that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao appointing the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat as Administrator be quashed and she be allowed to function and discharge her duties as Chairperson till 24.06.2012.
The facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the last election of Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat was held in the month of October, 2006 in which the petitioner, Smt.Manjoo emerged as winner and accordingly, in a meeting held on 17.11.2006 she was administered oath of the office of the Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat . Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat was held on 25.06.2007, as such in terms of the provisions contained in Article 243-E (243-U) of the Constitution of India, her term as Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat would come to an end only on 24.06.2012. In this view, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that any order appointing Administrator in place of the petitioner would amount to illegal curtailment of term of the petitioner to which she is legally and constitutionally entitled to avail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sharad Pathak in his valiant attempt to establish the case in favour of the petitioner has argued that since the term of Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat as per provisions of Article 243-E (243-U) of the Constitution of India is five years as such any order passed by any authority which has the effect of curtailing the said term of five years will be unconstitutional. He has further stated that for the purpose of computing five years in reference to the provisions of Article 243-E (243-U) of Constitution of India, in the instant case, the first meeting of Nagar Panchayat will be deemed to have taken place only on 25.6.2007 and not the earlier alleged meetings for the reason that in the meetings allegedly held prior to the meeting dated 25.06.2007, no business was transacted for want of quorum.
Placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another Versus Dr.Mohan Jeet Singh and another reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 562, The Punjab University Chandigarh Versus Vijay Singh Lamba and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC, 344, Chandra Kant Khaire Versus Dr.Shanta Ram Kale and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 577 and Jayant Bhai Manu Bhai Patel and others Versus Arun Subodh Bhai Mehta and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 484 , Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has painstakingly tried to bring-home a case in favour of the petitioner and argued that in absence of quorum, no meeting can be said to have taken place at all and hence for the purpose of calculating the term of the petitioner, the meetings held prior to 25.06.2007 are meaningless. He has referred to certain documents annexed with the writ petition in the shape of certain certificates and reports submitted by the authorities and has tried to impress upon the Court that even the authorities admit that the first meeting was held only on 25.06.2007 and not before that.
Shri Pathak has further placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in a Bunch of writ petitions, leading Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.11226(M/B) of 2011 decided on 05.12.2011 wherein it has been held that after taking oath of the office, the first meeting convened and held, shall be treated as the first meeting for the purpose of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India.
Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the court that against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 05.12.2011 in the aforesaid Bunch of the writ petitions, no interference was made, so far as the aforesaid finding regarding the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat is concerned, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 13.12.2011.
Shri Pathak, further argued for the petitioner and heavily relied on the Government Order dated 17.12.2011 issued in regard to taking appropriate steps for managing the affairs of the local bodies on account of the fact that the elections of the local bodies could not be held before expiry of their term. Shri Pathak says that even the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.12.2011 provides that the term of the local body concerned shall commence from the first meeting of the local body after the date on which the oath is administered to the Chairperson and other members.
On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have submitted that the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat, after the oath was administered to its Chairperson and members, was convened on 16.01.2007 and the first meeting for the purpose of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India or for the purpose of determination of term of the Nagar Panchayat should be taken to be 16.01.2007 and not 25.06.2007, as is being asserted on behalf of the petitioner.
A counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.3 has been filed wherein, it has been stated that after oath was administered to the Chairperson and members of the Nagar Panchayat on 17.11.2006, an agenda was circulated to convene the meeting of Nagar Panchayat on 16.01.2007. In the counter affidavit the agenda of the meeting and minutes of the meeting dated 16.01.2007 have been annexed as Annexure No.CA-2. It has further been argued that thereafter another meeting was convened to be held on 15.06.2007 and then the meeting was held on 25.06.2007. The submission of behalf of the opposite parties is that though the quorum in the meetings held on 16.01.2007 and 15.06.2007 was not complete, however, the meetings were convened though no business could be transacted in these two meetings, namely; in the meetings dated 16.01.2007 and 15.06.2007.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since the first meeting, after the oath was administered, was convened on 16.01.2007 for which agenda was also circulated amongst the members of the Nagar Panchayat, as such 16.01.2006 is the date of the first meeting for the purpose of computing and determining the term of Nagar Panchayat.
We have carefully considered the contentions made and arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for respective parties and have also gone through the material available on record of the case.
The sole question which falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the term of Nagar Panchayat and of its Chairperson would come to an end on 24.06.2007 treating the meeting dated 25.06.2007 as the first meeting of Nagar Panchayat or prior to that, i.e. treating the meeting convened on 16.01.2007 as the first meeting of Nagar Panchayat.
After 74th Constitutional amendment, Part IX-A was introduced in the Constitution by way of enactment of The Constitution (74th Amendments) Act,1992.The said provisions came into operation with effect from First of June, 1993. By introduction of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, the Municipalities were given constitutional status with a view to strengthen the urban local bodies to promote the concept of and implement the idea of better and stronger Local-Self Governments in the urban areas of the country. Article 243-U(1) of the Constitution of India provides the duration of the urban local bodies according to which every municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Article 243-U (1) of the Constitution of India is being quoted hereunder for ready reference :-
"243U. Duration of Municipalities, etc.--
(1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.
Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution.
So far as the duration of rural local bodies namely; Village Panchayats, Kshetra Panchayats and District Panchayats is concerned, provisions similar to the provisions of Article 243U of the Constitution exists in Article 243-E of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that Article 243-E falls in Part IX which was introduced in the Constitution by way of enacting the Constitution(Seventy third Amendment) Act, 1992 which came into force with effect from 01.06.1993. Part IX was added in the Constitution with a view to promote and strengthen Local Self Governments in the rural areas. However, the provisions of Article 243-U of the Constitution which are in respect of urban local bodies and those of Article 243-E which are in respect of rural urban bodies are akin to each other.
Section 10-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 also provides that every municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Section 10-A (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 runs as under :-
"10-A. Term of municipality.--(1) Every municipality shall, unless sooner dissolved under Section 39, continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. "
The fate of the instant writ petition, thus, depends on the decision on the issue as to whether the period of the Nagar Panchayat for the purpose of determining its term shall start running from the date appointed for its first meeting dated 16.01.2007, though no business could be transacted for want of quorum.
A careful reading of the provisions contained in Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Section 10-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 makes it clear that the phrase occurring in both these provisions is "from the date appointed for its first meeting" .Thus, the term of the Nagar Panchayat will start running from the date appointed for its first meeting.
In the instant case, admittedly a meeting was held on 17.11.2006 and in the said meeting only the oath was administered to the members and the Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 05.12.2011 in the case of Writ Petition No. 11226(M/B) of 2011 Sandeep Alias Sandeep Mehrotra and another Versus State of U.P. and others alongwith other connected matters, taking oath of office is the condition precedent and entitles a member to participate in the meeting of the Municipal Board or the Municipal Corporation. Thus, so far as the arguments being raised by Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the meeting in which only oath is administered to the members and Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat should not be treated to be the first meeting for the purpose of determining the term as provided in Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and Section 10-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 is concerned, the Court is in complete agreement with the said argument in view of the law laid down by this Court in its judgment dated 05.12.2011 in the case of Writ Petition No. 11226 (M/B) of 2011 Sandeep Alias Sandeep Mehrotra (Supra). Thus, the meeting of Nagar Panchayat held on 17.11.2006 cannot be said to be the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat so as to reckon its term of five years. To this extent the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sharad Pathak is accepted.
However, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that since in the meetings dated 16.01.2007 and 15.06.2007 no business was transacted for want of quorum of the Nagar Panchayat, as such either of these two meetings should not be treated to be the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat does not appear to be sound and merits rejection for the reasons discussed below.
There is no dispute as to the fact that in the meetings dated 16.01.2007 and 15.06.2007 no business by the members of the Nagar Panchayat could be transacted for want of quorum. However, it is also noted at this juncture that there is also no denial of the fact that the meetings on 16.01.2007 and 15.06.2007 were convened by circulating agenda for the said meetings . Admittedly, on 16.01.2007 the members of the Nagar Panchayat assembled in pursuance of the agenda circulated for the said meeting dated 16.01.2007 and no business except the business of postponing the meeting for want of quorum was transacted by the members of the Nagar Panchayat. In this view, it cannot be said that on 16.01.2007 no meeting was convened. As a matter of fact, meeting was held as appointed earlier by way of circulating the agenda but no business transaction could be made on the said date. The agenda for the meeting to be held on 16.01.2007 was circulated for the purpose of transaction of certain business by the members of the Nagar Panchayat and hence, it cannot be held that what occurred on 16.01.2007 was merely a gathering or an assembly of members of Nagar Panchayat. As a matter of fact, it was a meeting of members of Nagar Panchayat who had gathered for holding the meeting on a pre-appointed day i.e. on 16.01.2007 specified and fixed for the said purpose. The purpose was to transact the business by the Nagar Panchayat as per the agenda circulated for the meeting. Thus, it was not a sudden gathering or assembly of the members; rather it was a meeting held as appointed earlier.
As regards the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that none of the judgments is of any help to the petitioner.
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another Versus Dr.Mohan Jeet Singh and another reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 562 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in absence of quorum any meeting is not entitled to transact any business. The question as to whether the business could be or was transacted does not appear to be relevant in the instant case for the reason that what is the material is not the transaction of business but the date appointed for the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat as is apparent from a perusal of the provisions contained in Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and Section 10-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 . Thus, so far as the legal proposition laid down in the judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh and another (Supra) is concerned, the same does not have any application to the instant case.
The other judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner namely; The Punjab University Chandigarh Versus Vijay Singh Lamba and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC, 344 only defines the quorum to mean minimum number of members of any body of persons whose presence is necessary to transact its business. So far as the meaning of quorum is concerned, there is no dispute in the instant case and hence, the said judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of The Punjab University Chandigarh (Supra) is also of no avail to him.
As regards the judgment reported in Chandra Kant Khaire Versus Dr.Shanta Ram Kale and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 577 which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would suffice to note that there Lordships in the aforesaid judgment have only held that the Municipal Commissioner under Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 could not adjourn the meeting for another day or adjourn it sine die. The aforesaid interpretation as regards the power of the Municipal Commissioner to adjourn or not to adjourn the first meeting is based on the provisions of Maharashtra Act. However, it is noteworthy that the interpretation to Section 6(2) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 has been given by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kant Khaire (Supra) keeping in view the fact that the term of the elected Councillors of the Municipal Corporation in Maharashtra also commences on the date of the first meeting. It is in this background that their Lordships have held in the said judgment that since the term of the said Councillors will start from the date of first meeting , hence the Chairman could not adjourn the meeting for another day or Sine die.
The last judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is Jayant Bhai Manu Bhai Patel and others Versus Arun Subodh Bhai Mehta and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 484 . The said judgment only holds the judgment in Chandra Kant Khaire (Supra) as per incurium and further that the Mayor has the power under the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Act to hold, cancel or postpone the first meeting before commencement of the meeting. The judgment in this case thus, only interprets the powers under Maharashtra enactment regarding postponement or cancellation of first meeting before it is held and as such in this view , this judgment also does not have any application to the facts of the case.
As discussed above, the phrase occurring in Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and Section 10-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 is "from the date appointed for its first meeting". The word "date appointed" in our view would mean the date fixed i.e. to say the date fixed for the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat. On the "date appointed" or on the date fixed, if for some valid reason no business could be transacted ( as in the present case, for want of quorum), it cannot be said that the meeting held on 16.012007 was not the first meeting for the purpose of determining the term of Nagar Panchayat in question. Admittedly, there is no dispute that on 16.01.2007, a meeting was scheduled i.e. to say 16.01.2007 was the day appointed for the meeting of the Nagar Panchayat. In view of the admitted position that an agenda was circulated and a day i.e. 16.01.2007 for holding the meeting was fixed, in other words, the meeting was scheduled to be held on 16.01.2007 , the Court is of the opinion that the said date shall be the "date appointed" for first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat and as such it is 16.01.2007 which will be the date from which the term of the Nagar Panchayat concerned would commence.
For the discussions made and the reasons given above, the Court comes to the definite conclusion that the date appointed for the first meeting of the Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao was 16.01.2007, hence, the term of the said Nagar Panchayat as also that of the petitioner being its Chairperson would come to an end on 15.01.2012.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.7.2012 RK/*