SRI AMIR AHMAD AND ORS. versus RAM NIWAS AGRAWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 19-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI AMIR AHMAD AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAM NIWAS AGRAWAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1993 
(MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
B 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916-Section 87A( ~ 1) (12 "}-Municipal Board 
-President-Motion of non-confidence duly passed in a properly convened 
meeting presided over by a judicial officer-Held, cannot be declared void on 
vague and halfhearted findings. 
C 
S.9(d)-Composition of Municipal Board-Members of Council of 
States and State Legislative Council to be ex-officio members-Held, place of · 
residence as mentioned in notification of election or nomination is relevant 
and detennines membership in a Municipal Board and change of residence 
after election or nomination is not relevant. 
D 
Word\' and Phrase~ression. 'residence' occurring in Explanation to 
s.9(d) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916-lnterpn!tation of. 
Respondent no.1 was the President of a Municipal Board. A no-con· 
fidence motion was moved against him. An Additional District Judge was E 
nominated to preside over the meeting to consider the motion. As per the 
minutes of the meeting s~een members including the President were 
present, besides an M.L.C. who claimed to be an ex-officio member of the 
Board and whose claim was rejected by the Presiding Officer; these · 
nominated members whose right to participate in the meeting was disputed 
on the ground that they had not taken the oath of allegiance, were allowed F 
by the Presiding Officer to participate in the meeting and vote on the 
motion; seventeen members, including the three nominated members voted 
in favour of the motion and one, the President himself, voted against It; the 
. Presiding Officer declared the motion to have been passed by the majority 
inasmuch as the total membership of the Board was twenty seven. The G 
respondent flied a writ petition before the High Court. Challenging the 
validity of the proceedings of the meeting. · 
The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that (l) the M.L.C. 
must be deemed to be member of the Board (li) though ln determining the 
total membership of the Board the three nominated member must be taken H 
815 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A 
into account, but since they had not taken the oath of allegiance, they were 
not entitled to take their. seats in the Municipal Board and vote and, 
therefore, their votes were liable to be excluded and (iii) the presence of two 
Executive Officers vitiated the proceeding~ as no acceptable reason for 
their PJesence in the meeting hall was given. 
B 
The appeal filed by the appellants challenging the correctness of the 
c 
reasons given by the High Court was allowed by this Court's order dated 
12.8.1993, indicating that reasons therefor would follow. 
Giving the reason for allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 By virtue of s.9(d) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, 
members of the Counsel of States (Rajya Sabha) and the State Legislative 
Council "who have their residence within the limits of the Municipality" 
become the members of the Municipal Board. For the purpose of the U.P. 
Municipalities Act, 1916, the place of residence of a member of the State 
D Legislative Council" shall be deemed to be the place of his residence men-
tioned in the notification of his election or nomination, as the case may be", 
and it is the said residence which is relevant and determines his member-
ship in the particular Municipal Board, as envisaged by the Explanation to 
clause (d) of s.9. This elucidation was thought necessary not only to obviate 
E any room for confusion but also to prevent such persons from claiming 
membership of different Municipal Boards at different times to suit their 
convenience of political objectives by changing their residence. (820-E-H] 
1.2 Even if member mentioned .in s.9(d) of the Act changes his 
residence after his electipn/nomination, it is irrelevant for the purpose of 
F 
his membership in a Municipal Board. If he becomes an ex-officio member 
of a particular Municipal Board by virtue of the place of residence men-
tioned in the notification of his election/nomination he does not lose it by 
changing his residence to .a place outside the limits of that Municipal 
Board. ·Similarly if he did not become in ex-officio member of any 
G Municipal Board because his place of residence mentioned in the Notifica· 
tion of his election/nomination did not fall within the local limits of a 
Municipal Board, he does not and cannot ga

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