OM NARAIN AGARWAL AND ORS. ETC. versus NAGAR PALIKA SHAHJAHANPUR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 19-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Granted
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
OM NARAIN AGARWAL AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
NAGAR PALIKA SHAHJAHANPUR AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1993 
(N.M. KM>LIWAL AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
United Provinces Municipalities Ac~ 1916: Section 9 First and Fowth 
provisos-Nominated women members to the Municipal Board-Cancella-
tion of their nomination without notice by State Government-WI .ether Article 
14 of the Constitution attracted-Doctrine of pleasure-Application of 
Constitution of India, 1950: Alticle 14-Nominated Women members 
to the Municipal Board under Section 9 of the United Provinces Munici-
palities Act, 1916-Cancellation of their nomination without notice by State 
Govemmenr,-Constitutionality of-Doctrine of pleasure-Application of 
In January, 1989, in accordance with First Proviso to Section 9 of 
the United Provinces Act, 1916 one Smt. Sarla Devi was nominated by the 
State Government as the sole Woman member for the Municipal Board. 
On 15.2.1990 U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 later on replaced by U.P. Act 
No. 19 of 1990 amended the proviso of Section 9 of the Act substituting a 
new proviso, providing for the nomination of two Women members by the 
State Government. The Amendment Act also added a fou·rth proviso to the 
Section which provided that the nomination of the two women members 
was at the pleasure of the State Government. 
On 19.2.19.90 the Government issuing a general notification and 
cancelled nominations of Women members in several Municipal Boards. 
Cancelling the nomination of Sm!. Sarla Devi, Smt. Abida and Smt. Hazra 
Khatoon were nominated by the Government on 19.4.1990. 
On 22.7.1991 under Section 87-A of the Act a no- confidence motion 
G against one Mohd. Iqbal, the President of the Board was initiated by some 
members before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate fixed 
12.8.1991 for consideration of the confidence motion. 
On 2.8.1991, the Government nominated Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. 
Baijanti Devi as the two women members of the Board, cancelling the 
H nominations of Smt. Abida and Smt. Hazra Khatoon. 
34 
-
·-
OM NARAIN v. NAGAR PALIKA 
35 
On 9.8.1991 Mohd. Iqbal, President or the Municipal Board, against A 
__._ , '--( 
whom the non-confidence motion was pending, filed a writ petition in the 
High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the fourth proviso to 
Section 9 of the Act and also challenged the notification dated 2.8.1991. 
Further be challenged the proceedings of no-confidence motion initiated 
against him. 
B 
-'·~ 
The High Court did not grant any stay of no-confidence proceedings, 
but ordered that the outcome of the no-confidence proceedings shall be 
subject to the result or the writ petition. 
-
In the meeting fixed on 12.8.1991 by the District Magistrate to c 
consider the no-confidence motion 20 members of the Board voted in 
favour of the no-confidence motioa, out of the total strength of37 members 
>---
of the Board. The newly nominated Women members by notification dated 
2.8.1991 participated in the meeting, whereas Smt. Abida and Hazra 
Khatoon neither attended the meeting nor claimed any right to attend the D 
same. 
The no-confidence motion dated 12.8.1991 was passed against Mohd. 
Iqbal. One Om Narain, (The appellant No. 1 in C.A. Nos. 714-16 or 1993) 
who was the Vice-President or the Board was elected as the President in 
the vacancy. The appellant-Om Narain took charge of the office of the E 
--.,. 
President or the Board and continued to function as the president. 
Mohd. Iqbal, the former President filed another writ petition chal· 
lenging the no-confidence motien dated 12.8.1991 passed against him. Smt. 
-
Abida and Smt. Hazra Khatoon also filed a writ petition, challenging the 
notification dated 2.8.1991, which cancelled their nominations and F 
no.minated Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi in their places. 
----
A Division Bench or the< High Court considered all the three writ 
petitions • two by the former President and one by the former women 
members. Agreeing with the decision in Dr. Smt. Rama Mishra v. State of G 
UP. (Writ Petition No.· 11114 of 1990 disposed on 9.12.1991) allowed the 
writ petitions, quashing the notification dated 2.8.1991 and declaring 
Mohd. Iqbal to be the president of the Board . 
.--<, 
The review application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the 
High Court. 
H 
, 
I 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
' 11993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Being aggrieved against the High Court's decision, the former Vice-
B 
c 
President and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.