Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was also prayed that an interim order be issued commanding the opposite party not to hold, the proposed election. The stay order was however not granted by this Court with the result that the election was held on 26-9-1955 and one Jyoti Prasad was elected as Chairman. Jyoti Prasad was then added as opposite party No. 2.

8. The petitioner's case was that under Section 8-A Clauses (3), (4) and (5), U. P. Town Areas Act (Act 2 of 1914) the petitioner's resignation was not effective until it was accepted by the District Magistrate, that he was entitled to withdraw it before it was accepted, that having withdrawn it", the resignation could not be accepted and there was therefore no vacancy in the office of the Chairman and all subsequent proceedings for the declaration of vacancy, for the holding of election and declaring Jyoti Prasad opposite party duly elected are null and void in the eye of law and that therefore the petitioner is the Chairman of the Town Area Committee and entitled to act as such,

This observation was clearly an obiter dictum as it was not necessary for the decision of the case. With the utmost respect I am unable to agree with the law thus propounded by the learned Judges. No authority is cited in support of this view. If the resignation is conditional no question of its acceptance could arise unless the conditions were fulfilled and there is no reason why before the conditions were fulfilled it could not be withdrawn. Similarly there is no reason why a resignation which may be unconditional but is yet ineffective before its acceptance, may not be withdrawn. A resignation which depends for its effectiveness upon the acceptance by the proper authority is like an offer which may be withdrawn before it is accepted.

The Town Area Committee of Pahasu consisted of ten members besides the Chairman and Jyoti Prasad filed affidavits of seven out of those ten members who, in their affidavits, averred that the relations between the petitioner and members of the Committee were very unhappy and strained and, on account of inefficient and unsatisfactory condition resulting from the activities of the petitioner, various representations were made against him.

It was further averred that the petitioner was popular neither with the public nor with the members of the Committee who had contemplated passing no-confidence motion against him and that, after submitting his resignation, the petitioner approached all those members individually and, by appealing to their sentiments of mercy and by bringing pressure on them of their friends and relations, he obtained the signatures of those members on the letters of representation to the District Magistrate that his resignation should not be accepted on the clear understanding that his resignation was genuine and he did not intend to act as the Chairman of the Committee in future. It was urged, in these circumstances, on behalf of Jyoti Prasad that the District Magistrate was fully justified in accepting the resignation of the petitioner in spite of his application for its withdrawal.

This anomalous position very clearly brings out the fact that the analogy of the Law of Contract as regards offer and acceptance cannot be applied to the case of a resignation and its withdrawal by a chairman of a Town Area Committee where the considerations that arise are entirely different from those governing the rights of parties entering into a contract.

Once a chairman has submitted his resignation, the law vests in the District Magistrate the discretion to accept or not to accept the resignation and to give effect to it by conveying the acceptance to the Town Area Committee and, consequently, at that stage, as I have said earlier, it is not possible to hold that the chairman has an absolute right of withdrawing the resignation so as to take away this discretion which is already vested in the District Magistrate and which has to be exercised by him keeping in view the public policy and principles of justice, equity and good conscience.