Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"We have heard this petition which runs into about 700 pages. We have noticed from the affidavits, on record that there are sharp divisions amongst the councillors of the Kalol Municipality, amongst the citizens of Kalol, amongst the employees of the Kalol Municipality and even amongst the press reporters. In order therefore that the situation may be cleared and more elucidation of the problem with which we are concerned may be had on record it is necessary that some of the principal deponents. who have made affidavits in this case on either side, should be cross-examined by the opposite party. (1) Husseinmiya Hasammiya Sayed, (2) Revabhai Lalabhai Parmar, (3) Babulal Somchand Shah, (4) Shantiben Ramachandra Barot, (5) Kantilal Chhaganlal Shah and (6) Babubhai Dahyabhai Khamar have made affidavits in favour of the petitioner. The first five, persons are the councillors of the Kalol Municipality who, according to the petitioner, were present at the meeting of the Municipality held on 6th May 1973 when motion of the Municipality against the Chairman respondent No. 1 was moved. According to the petitioner, they had voted for the no confidence motion. According to the respondent No. 1, they were absent and, therefore, they could not vote for the no confidence motion. It is, therefore, necessary to subject those five witnesses to cross-examination by the respondent No. 1. The sixth person Babubhai Dahyabhai Khamar, the local correspondent of 'Gujarat Samachar' daily of Ahmedabad, claims in his affidavit to have entered the Council Hall of the Kalol Municipality and to have watched the proceedings. He is an independent man. Affidavits have been made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to show that he was not allowed by the police to enter the Municipal Hall and to watch the proceedings. If he had really watched the proceedings of the meeting of the Kalol Municipality on 6th May 1973, his evidence would go a long way in helping us to decide the issue before us. It is, therefore, necessary that he should be subjected to cross-examination by the respondent No. 1. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall produce the aforesaid six persons before this Court at 11 O'clock on 20-9-1973 for cross- examination by the respondent No. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that Vithalbhai Somabhai Patel, a councillor of Kalol Municipality, was present at the said meeting of the Kalol Municipality and had voted for the no confidence motion. Vithalbhai Somabhai Patel denies that fact and also denies his presence at that meeting al- together.

Mr. Amin has next challenged the correctness of the finding of the High Court that 17 councillors hid supported the motion of no confidence. It is submitted that the version of he appellant regarding what transpired in the meeting of May 6, 1973 is correct. The High Court, according to the learned counsel, was in error in relying upon the version of respondent No. 1. In particular, Mr. Amin submits that V. S. Patel councillor was not present in that meeting. The presence of Councillor Kantilal Chhaganlal Shah in the 'meeting has also been questioned. In this respect we find that the High Court has relied upon the affidavits of 16 councillors who in the course of their affidavits stated that 17 councillors including those councillors themselves had voted in the meeting held on May 6, 1973 in support of the motion of no confidence. Out of those 16 councillors, 15 were admittedly in Kalol on that day. They having signed the. motion of no confidence, there was, in the opinion of the High Court, no reason why they should not be present in that meeting. As regards the presence of Councillor Kantilal Chhaganlal Shah, the High Court relied upon his affidavit wherein he stated that he was present in the meeting and had voted in support of the motion of no confidence and found that his deposition had not been shaken in cross-examination. Regarding Councillor V. S. Patel about whom the case of respondent No. 1 was that he had supported the motion of no confidence while that of the appellant was that he was not present in the meeting, the High Court observed that the material on record pointed to the conclusion that he had supported the motion of no confidence. The High Court in this context relied upon the version given by Chief Officer R.D. Barot, who was admittedly present in that meeting, as well as the statement of Babulal Dahyabhai Khamar, press correspondent. After having heard Mr. Amin at considerable length, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the appraisement of the depositions and other material on record by the High Court. Mr. Amin, however, submits that Councillor V. S. Patel had been supporting the appellant in the past. Patel also filed on May 8, 1973 an affidavit in support of the appellant in the course of which he denied that he was present in the above meeting or that he had supported the motion of no confidence. It is urged that as V. S. Patel was a supporter of the appellant it is most unlikely that he would vote in favour of the motion of no confidence against the appellant. We are unable to accede to this submission. It may be a matter of mournful reflection but all the same it is the acknowledgement of a stark reality that there has been in recent years in the case of some elected representatives so much erosion of moral values that they feel no compunction in repeatedly changing their loyalty and shifting their allegiance from one party leader to the other. Such representatives have a pliable conscience plainly because they succumb to all kinds of pressures and yield to all kinds of temptations. They bring a touch of melodrama and the kaleidoscopic nature of the local Political scene is quite often a reflection of the sombre activities of these representatives. Against the backdrop of such activities we find nothing surprising or unusual in the conduct of Councillor Patel.

It may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 has brought on record material as would indicate the circumstances under which V. S. Patel chose to support the motion of no confidence. Soon after the. decision of the Gujarat High Court on April 2, 1973 that a motion of no confidence' to succeed against the President should be supported by at least 17 councillors, the residents of ward No. 7 in Kalol held a meeting. V. S. Patel, who along with two others had been elected to the municipality from that ward, was admittedly present in that meeting. Some of the persons present in that meeting, according to Patel, asked him to work in unison with the majority group which was led by respondent No. 1. It seems that it was as a result of the pressure which was brought to bear upon Patel in that meeting that he supported the motion of no confidence. After the meeting of May 6, 1973 Patel again seems to have changed his mind and joined the group of the appellant. There is one important circumstance which tends to show that the version of respondent No. 1 with regard to what transpired in the above meeting is nearer the truth. In the earlier meeting which was held on November 1, 1972, a motion of no confidence against the appellant had been supported by 16 councillors. The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated April 2, 1973, held that the motion of no confidence against the appellant could succeed only if it was supported by at least 17 councillors. In view of that- decision, it is most unlikely that 16 councillors would have sent notice of motion of no confidence on April 21, 1973 unless they had been assured of the support of a seventeenth councillor. Otherwise it would have been a sheer exercise in futility for the 16 councillors to repeat the performance of what had taken place in the meeting of November 1, 1972. We therefore find nothing improbable in the stand taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 that V. S. Patel had pledged his support to the motion of no confidence and that he actually supported that motion in the meeting held on May 6, 1973. Argument has also been advanced that no signature of the councillors present were taken in the meeting held on May 6, 1973. It is stated that respondent No. 1 had been insisting on taking such signatures in the past and that in two or three meetings signatures of the councillors were, in fact obtained. The omission to take the signatures in the meeting of May 6, 1973, according to Mr. Amin, was deliberate so that the correct number of councillors present in the meeting might not be known. We are unable to accept this argument. There is no statutory provision in the Gujarat Municipalities Act which requires that the signatures of the members attending a meeting must be obtained. It is true that respondent No. 1 had been insisting on obtaining signatures of the councillors present in a meeting but his plea in this respect was generally not accepted. No signatures were admittedly taken in the meeting held on November 1, 1972 when 16 councillors supported the motion of no confidence against the appellant. It is conceded by Mr. Amin that on two or three occasions when signatures of councillors attending the meeting were taken, this was done at the commencement of the meeting. As it was Vice President Barot, who initially presided over the meeting held on May 6, 1973, the responsibility to take the signatures at the commencement of the meeting could at the, best be that of Vice President Barot and not that of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 in our opinion, cannot be penalised for the omission of Vice President Barot who admittedly belongs to the group of the appellant. It has next been argued on behalf of the appellant that a- ground had been specified in notice dated April 21, 1973 which was sent by 16 councillors for convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. The councillors in that meeting, according to the submission, had to stick to that ground and could not depart from it in passing the motion of no confidence. With a view to show that a different ground was set up in passing the motion of no confidence, our attention has been invited to the minutes of that meeting which when translated into English read as under :

The above contention has been controverted by respondent No.1 who has argued the appeal personally. It is no doubt true, submits respondent No. 1, that in the earlier part of the minutes there is a recital that the appellant had not been allowing the municipal administration to function in accordance with the provision* of law, the concluding part of the minutes shows that "17 members declare their no confidence against the President on the present motion of no confidence". Respondent No. 1 accordingly submits that the, ground which had been specified in the notice for the meeting was adhered to when passing the motion of no confidence. Although the stand taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 in this respect does not appear to be bereft of force, we need not express an opinion on this aspect of the matter because the contention advanced by the appellant can be repelled on another ground, namely, that there is no imperative requirement in the case of a motion of no confidence that it should be passed on some particular ground. There is nothing in the language of section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act reproduced earlier which makes it necessary to specify a ground when passing a motion of no confidence against the President. It is no doubt true that according to the form prescribed the ground for the, motion of no confidence has to be mentioned in the notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence. It does not, however, follow therefrom that the ground must also be specified when a motion of no confidence is actually passed against a President. It is pertinent in this context to observe that there is a difference between a motion of no confidence and a censure motion. While it is necessary in the case of a censure motion to set out the ground or charge on which it is based, a motion of no confidence need not set out a ground or charge. A vote of censure presupposes that the persons censured have been guilty of some impropriety or lapse by act or omission. It may, therefore, become necessary to specify the impropriety or lapse while moving a vote of censure. No such consideration arises when a motion of no confidence is moved. Although aground may be mentioned when passing a motion of no confidence, the existence of a ground is not a prerequisite of a motion of no confidence. There is no legal bar to the passing of a motion of no confidence against an authority in the absence of any charge of impropriety or lapse on the part of that authority. The essential connotation of a no confidence motion is that the party against whom such motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority of members. We may in the above context refer to page 591 of Practice & Procedure of Parliament, Second Ed. by Kaul and Shakdher. wherein it is observed as under :