Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The second plank of submission of Mr. Jain relates to non-moving of the motion of no confidence by an elected Councillor. Section 43-A postulates that vote of no confidence may be moved against the Vice-President by an elected Councillor at a meeting which is specially convened. Submission of Mr. Jain is that if a motion-of no confidence is not moved the meeting cannot be proceeded and voting cannot take place. It is also his submission that there has to be a debate and discussion with regard to the motion. Admittedly in the case at hand no elected Councillor had moved the motion of no confidence. It transpires from the resolution that the competent authority presided over the meeting and the voting took place. The moot question that falls for consideration is whether moving of a motion by an elected Councillor is mandatory or not and whether there can be deemed moving of a motion by conduct. Mr. Jain learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has proposed that an elected member is required to move the motion of no confidence against the Vice-President whereas Mr. Tankha ha contended that once the proposal is tabled and is brought to the notice of the House in any manner whatsoever that would amount to moving of motion. In the case at hand, admittedly no elected Councillor moved the motion of no confidence. The meeting was convened at the time stipulated where the competent authority apprised the members present about the convening of meeting of the no confidence against the Vice-President and certain doubts were cleared. It is appropriate to reproduce the language used in the resolution (at page 19).

^^esjs }kjk mifLFkr leLr ik"kZnx.k dks mik/;{k ds fo:) izkIr vfo'okl izLrko ij uxj ikfydk fof/k la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e ls lacaf/kr tkudkjh nh xbZ rFkk mudh 'kadkvksa dk lek/kku fd;kA mifLFkr leLr ik"kZnksa dks fuokZpu dk;kZy;

lhgksj ls izkIr er isVh [kksydj fn[kkbZ xbZ rFkk ik"kZnksa ds le{k gh mls xqIr ernku gsrq lhycUn fd;k x;k rnksijkUr mifLFkr ik"kZnx.kksa dh ,d&,d dj eq>ls eri= izkIr dj fu/kkZfjr cwFk es tkdj eri= ij fu'kku vafdr djus dh lwpuk nh rFkk lHkh ik"kZn x.kksa dks eri= dk ernku ds iwoZ voyksdu djk;k x;kA** It is also reflected in the resolution that the voting commenced at 12.45 p.m. Thus there was a gap of 45 minutes. The core question that requires determination is whether the drawing of attention of the members of the House by the competent authority would amount to sufficient compliance or not. The statute confers a privilege on an elected member to move the motion of no confidence. If the motion is not moved, submits Mr. Jain, the question of carrying it dut does not arise. In essence his submission is that one of the elected Councillors has to move the proposal and in absence of proposal being moved the proceedings of the meeting have no legal validity. Mr. Jain has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the case of Nagasai v. State of M. P. and others in W.P. No. 4305/95 wherein this Court while interpreting the provision contained in Section 29 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has held that Sarpanch and Upsarpanch, as the case may be, shall have aright to speak or to take part in the proceeding. This Court has observed that the object of this right is to satisfy and to impress upon the members during the course of discussion about the confidence which was denied to the person facing a vote of no confidence. Mr. Jain has fairly accepted that the language used under Section 21(2) is quite different but the purpose is inhered because there is stipulation for moving a motion. In a democratic set up, moving of a motion of no confidence has its own significance. The word 'motion' has not been defined in the Act. Once a particular word or term has not been given any specific definition in the statute it has to be understood in the common parlance. In Law Lexicon by Ramnath Aiyar it has been indicated that motion in Local Assemblies means as under:--

"A motion is a proposal made to evoke action on the part of the council or other assembly, and when acted upon, it becomes the formal expression of the will or resolution of the city council."

In parliamentary law, the motion has been given the following meaning :--

"A motion is a "proposition made to the house by a member, which, if adopted, becomes the resolution, vote or order of the house."

In 'words and phrases' one of the meaning given to the word 'motion' is that "a proposal or suggestion looking to action in deliberative assembly." Considering the aforesaid meaning of the term and its distinction in a democratic set up it is necessary to give its due meaning. The requirement of law is that the proposal has to be moved by a member. An elected member has been conferred with the privilege to move the proposal. The question is whether such moving of the proposal or mooting of the same should be regarded as mandatory. The purpose of the section is that the proposal is floated so that all the members present know the nature of proposal. The basic purpose is to invite a deliberation. The moving of the proposal has to be given its due weightage and cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that members were aware of it. It can only be moved by an elected Councillor and not otherwise. Thus, a motion is moved for apprising the nature and purpose of the meeting and it opens a debate to ascertain the sense of meeting and to clearly putforth the rival ideas so that each member present can exercise his right of voting in en objective manner. That being the purpose, the importance of moving of motion cannot be: allowed to be diminished. Open discussion is the basic requirement of a democracy and when the Vice-President is sought to be unseated through the vote of no confidence there has to be a discussion. The legislature in Sub-section (2) of Section 43A stipulates for convening the meeting and under Sub-section (1) about the manner of conduct of the meeting. Every step has a purpose. As is apparent, a nominated Councillor or ex-officio Councillor cannot move for no confidence. The competent authority has nothing to do with the moving of the motion. The legislative purpose cannot be whittled down by substituting that apprisal by the Presiding Officer amounts to substantial compliance. Indubitably that would not sub serve the purpose and intendment of the legislature. Hence, I am inclined to hold that motion of no confidence can only be moved by an elected Councillor and not otherwise.

12. I have already held that the despatch of notice to every Councillor to be mandatory and moving a no confidence motion by an elected Councillor is the basic requirement for the progress of the meeting on a specified date. In the case at hand there has been non-compliance of both the provisions. Mr. Jain has vehemently urged that the provisions have not been complied with, and hence the resolution passed cannot be said to have been validly passed. He has submitted that if a thing is required to be done in law in a particular manner it should be done in the said manner alone or should not be done at all. As the facts exposit, the competent authority had putforth the proposal to the House and cleared the doubts of the members present. The petitioner was present in the meeting as the resolution passed vide Annexure P-4 clearly indicates. He had chosen not to object to the non-compliance of Sub-section (2)(ii) of Section .43- A of the Act nor had he objected to the non-moving of the motion. He did not voice his grievance that he had not been given an opportunity to speak or there had been no discussion. As is apparent, the meeting was convened at 12 noon and voting took place at 12.45 p.m. There was sufficient time to object to the procedure adopteu in convening the meeting and conducting of the meeting. The petitioner behaved as a silent spectator and conceded to the procedure. The petitioner being present arid having participated in the voting process and having lost in the vote of no confidence, cannot claim the relief as has been done by him. At this juncture,. I may refer to the decision rendered in the ease of I K. Narasimhaiah v. H. C. Singri Gowda, AIR 1966 SC 330 wherein some of the Councillors of the concerned Municipality alleged to have received the notices less than three clear days. There were 20 Councillors in all and 19 Councillors, attended the meeting 15 members voted in favour of no confidence. The person against whom the no confidence motion was moved was present in the meeting. The Apex Court in the considering factual matrix observed as under (Para 20) :--