Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

46. Mr. Bobde has conceded that there is not a single reported case in which the ruling out of a resolution before the meeting has been upheld by the Court, and I am not surprised that that is so. He has only referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Charan Lal v. State of U.P. in which the act of a statutory Chairman adjourning a meeting even before it was held was held to be valid. It may, however, be pertinent to note that under Sub-section (4) of Section 87A of the U.P.. Municipalities Act, 1916, under which that question arose, if a statutory Chairman did not arrive within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting was to stand automatically adjourned to a later date to he notified, and in Sub-section (5) of the same section it was provided, "if the judicial officer is unable to preside at the meeting he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting" to such other date and time as he may appoint". The rest of that sub-section is not material for the purpose of the present discussion. The Supreme Court in its judgment took into account the fact that Sub-section (4) provided for an automatic adjournment in the absence of the statutory Chairman which made it pointless to take the view that he could not adjourn the meeting in advance even if he knew in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting. The Supreme Court also took the view that the terms of Sub-section (5) were wide enough to permit the statutory Chairman to adjourn the meeting even before it was held. Mr. Bobde has relied upon this decision for the proposition which he propounded that what could be done at the meeting could be done before the meeting, or at any rate, shortly before it. I am afraid the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Charan Lal's case lays down no such broad proposition. It is clearly distinguishable on three grounds: First, the fact that there was statutory provision for an automatic adjournment which made it "pointless" to hold the meeting; secondly, the terms of Sub-section (5) were wide enough to place the construction which the Supreme Court did place upon it; and thirdly, that that was a case of a statutory Chairman who alone could preside and there was, therefore, no possibility of conflict by the actual Chairman giving a different ruling. In the result, I hold that the Vice-Chancellor in the present case has no power to rule out the petitioner's resolution prior to the meeting of the Court, either under Regulation 54, or under Regulation 8 read with Section 12(3) of the Act. No other statutory provision has been relied upon on behalf of the respondents.

... Sub-section (4) provides that if the presiding judicial officer does not attend the meeting, the meeting stands automatically adjourned after half an hour to a date and time to be appointed later find notified to the members by that officer under Sub-section (5). It seems pointless, therefore, to think that if the judicial officer knows in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting that he has not the power to adjourn the meeting in advance. No visible profit results from such a construction. In fact, the words of Sub-section (5) are that if the judicial officer is unable to preside at the meeting he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint. This can happen not only at the meeting but also before the date of meeting if the judicial officer is in a position to say that he would be unable to preside at the meeting. If this were not so some unforeseen event which requires the presiding officer to be absent would frustrate the entire no-confidence motion because the judicial officer would be unable to adjourn it in advance. That the consequences under Sub-section (4) would automatically flow also show that it should be possible for the presiding officer to adjourn a meeting which under the law would in any event be adjourned under Sub-section (4). In our opinion it is not necessary that the judicial officer should be present at the meeting and then adjourn it for purposes of Sub-section (5). He can take action in advance. This will be convenient all round because it will save members from attendance on that day. This was done in this case and in our opinion the action was correct.