LexK. NARASIMHIAH versus H. C. SINGRI GOWDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 April I 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1964] K. NARASIMHIAH v. H. C. SINGRI GOWDA IK. SuBBA Rl\D, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.] Municipality-No confidence resolution against President- Enactment providing tl'lree clear days notice jor holding special general meeting-Provision if mandatory-Failure to give such notice-Effect-Validity-Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, ss. 23(9), 24(1) (a). 24(3) and 27(3). The ap!J€1lant was the elected President of the Municipality. In a special general meeting of the councillors a resolution ex- pressing no confidence in him as President \Vas moved and passed. In the High Court as well as in this Court, the legality ·of the proceedings of the meeting and the validity of the resolu- tion was. challenged by the appellant on the grounds, (i) that the requisite three days notice under the Act was not served on all the members and so the meeting was not validly held, (ii) that the meeting was not properly held as the appellant was not allowed to preside and thus s. 24(1) (a) of the Act was con- travened and (iii) that the requisition for moving the resolution did not comply with the proviso to s. 23(a) of the Act as fifteen days notice was not given of the intention to move the resolu- tion. The last two contentions were rejected by the High Court. On the main contention it held that as the notices were sent to the councillors on the 10th October 1963, they must be held to have been given on that date even though they were actually served on the 11th, 12th and 13th; but, apart from that it was of opinion that the provisions abOut three days notice was only directory and not mandatory and so the omission to give notice would not affect the validity of the resolution. Held: (i) The High Court was wrong holding that "send- ing!! a notice amounts to "giving" the notice. There is no autho- rity or principle for the proposition that as soon as the person in the legal duty to give the notice despatches the notice to the address of the person to whom it has to be given, the giv- ing is complete. Therefore, it must be held that the notice given to some of the councillors was of less than three clear days. (ii) The provision as regards any motion or proposition of which notice must be given in s. 27 (3) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore the fact that some of the council- lors received less than three clear days notice of the meeting did not by itself made the proceedings of the meeting or the resolution !>"SSed there invalid. These would be invalid only if the proceed- ings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity. In the pre- sent case, nineteen of the twenty councillors attended the meet- ing and of these 19, 15 voted in favour of the resolution of no confidence against the appellant. There is thus no reason for holddng that the proceedings of the meeting were prejudicially affected by the "irregularity in the service of notice". State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, (1958) S.C.R. 533, referred to. (iii) On a consideration of the material on the record. it must be held that it was after the appellant left the meeting that the Vice President took the chair and thereafter the no confi- dence resolution was moved and passed. There could therefore 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 619 be no question of any contravention of the requirement under s.24(1) (a) of the Act that the President shall preside. 1964 llr arasinihiaA v. (iv) The proviso to s.23(9) of the Act was not contravened. All that is required is that before the resolut10n is actually moved, the President has got fifteen days notice. In the present case, the meeting was held on October 14 and the appellant received the notice on the 25th September. There was thus more than 15 days notice given to him. H. C, Singri Gowda CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 223 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated December 6, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1963. S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrislman, for the appellant. N.S. Krishna Rao and Girish Chandra, for respondents No. I, 2, 4--10, 12-15. April 1, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J.-Is the requirement of three clear days' Das Gupta, J. notice for the holding of a special general meeting as embodi- ed in s. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act 1951, a mandatory provi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.