JAI CHARAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 05-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JAi CHARAN LAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
May 5, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAl\I Jn 
U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of 1916), s. 81-A-(3) 
and 
(5)-"'Nor 
earlier than 30 days", meaning of-"'Send by registered post not· less 
than 7 clear aays" Scope. of-"Adjourn'", meaning of. 
Under '· 87A(3) of the Uttar Pradesh 
Municipalities 
Act. 
J9i6. 
when a notice of intention to make a motion of non-confidence in the 
President of a Municipality is <lelivereil by tho requisite 
number 
of 
members of the Municipal Board, to the District Magistrate, the District 
Magistrate shall convene a meeting on a date not earlier tlzan thirty, and 
not later than thirty-five ·days from the date on which the notice was 
delivered to him. 
He shall send by registered post, not Jess than seven 
clear days nefore the date of the meeting, 
notice• 
of the 
date and 
time of the meeting to all members. 
Under s. 87A(4) he shall arrange 
with the District Judge for a judicial officer to preside at the meeting. 
If the presiding judicial officer doc!i not attend the meeting, it stands 
automaticall} adjourned to a date and time to be appointed by 
h:m 
later. and, i.nder s. 87A(5), 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. 
In the present case, the notice by the members \\'US delivered to the 
District Magistrate on October. 26, 1966. 
He issued registered notices 
on November 17, 1966, fixing November 25, 1966 as the date of the 
me-zting. 
The District Judge had nominated the Additional Civil Judge 
to preside at the meeting, but the latter made an order on November 
22, 1966 intimating that he would be unable to preside on the 25th and 
adjourning the meeting to December 5, 1966. 
The appellant, who wa' 
the President of the Municipal Board and against whom the notice of 
non-confidence was directed, filed a writ petition in the High Court for 
stay of the meeting but before it was heard the resolution of non-con-
fidence was passed unanimously by the members on December 5, 1966. 
The appellant prayed that the High Court may quash the resolution, 
but the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers as the 
resolution had already been pa·;sed by the necessary majority. 
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended that, 
(!) there was a breach of s. 
87-A(3), because, (a) : 
excluding 
November 18, 1966, the presumable date of receipt of the registered 
notice issued by the District Magistrate, and November 25, 1966, the 
date of the meeting, seven clear days did not intervene as required by 
the section, and (b) : the expression "not earlier than thirty days" means 
"not less than thirty days and on that basis, excluding both the terminal 
days, namely October 26, 1966 and November 25, 1966 thirty clear 
days, as required by the section, did not intervene; and (2) there was also 
a breach of s. 87-A(S), becall<e, the presiding judicial officer was 
not 
empowered to adjourn the meeting in advance but could only do so on 
the date of the meeting if he was unable to preside. 
SUPRBM!i COURT REPORTS 
[1%7] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: ( 11 There was no hreach or s. 87-A(3) 
(a) Since the expression in the section is 
"~hall send lhc 
notice" 
the critical <late is the date of dc:-.pittch of the notice nnd not the date 
of its receipt. 
As the notice \Va'i sent on the 17th and the n1ceting wa' 
called on the :!5th. excluding the l\.i./o dates, 
seven 
clear 
days 
did 
intervene. 
!9X5A-BJ 
(b) Tht: cxprcs'iions ,;not earlier than 30 Jays"' 
~ind ··not Jc"ls than 
30 days" c.111not he euuatc<l. 
Just as '"not later than thirty-five 
days'' 
would not exclude the 35th day. "not earlier than 30 days" would not 
exclude the Jllth day. 
"Not earlier than 30 days" means that it should 
not he 29th day. hut there is nothing to show that the language excludes 
the 30th <lay fron1 computation. 
If the provision were "not earlier than 
thiriy days and not later than thirty days" it is obvious that only 
the 
.10th day could he meant. 
Therefore, in the present 
case, 
although 
October ~~ h"d lo he excluded. Novcniher 25. the date on which the 
111l'cting Y•<ts to he called. ncc<l not he excluded and the date of the 
meeting cannot r., described "' earlier than 30 day•. 1985F-H; 986A-C] 
If. H. Raia !1ari11d,,,. St'11g/i v . .\'. Kamat'/ St'11glt & Or.1'., A.J:R, 1957 
S.C. 271. followed. 
S111t. Hanu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.