Skip to content


Dinesh Chandra Garg and anr. Vs. District Magistrate, Meerut and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 244 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1976All313
ActsUttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 87A(9)
AppellantDinesh Chandra Garg and anr.
RespondentDistrict Magistrate, Meerut and ors.
Appellant AdvocateGyan Chandra Dwivedi, ;P.L. Agyan and ;S.C. Khare, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR.B. Mehrotra and ;S.N. Kakkar, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the vote cannot therefore be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it violated the requirements of sub-section (9) of section 87-a of the u. the affidavits of these two persons are not reliable as they have sworn the contents of the affidavits in the following manner. it is thus not possible for us to place any reliance on these affidavits, 5. the presiding officer has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that at the meeting he had explained the whole procedure and had clearly told the members present at the meeting that persons desiring to vote in favour oi the motion should put a cross (x) mark and those opposing the motion should putt a tick (?) mark there is no specific denial of this assertion of the presiding officer by the petitioner......the u. p. municipalities act. according to the learned counsel the manner of voting adopted by the presiding officer was inherently confusing and was thus not capable of bringing out correct results. at the time of the meeting one of the members prayed that the voting should not be done openly but by secret ballot the prayer was accepted by the presiding officer. after explaining the method of voting the presiding officer went to his ante-chamber and called the voters one by one. he prepared one chit or slip of paper for each vote and signed the same. a person who wanted to vote in favour of the resolution was to put cross (x) mark and a person who wanted to oppose the motion of no-confidence was to put a tick (?) mark. according to the learned counsel such a 'method is not contemplated.....
Judgment:

Hari Swarup, J.

1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment, of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the motion of no-confidence passed against him. The petitioner was elected President of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. A notice of no-confidence was given to the District Magistrate by certain members of the Board. In pursuance thereof the meeting was held on 24-8-1973. At that meeting the motion was declared carried.

2. Before the learned single Judgethe petitioner had challenged the proceedings on various grounds. But before us the learned counsel has confined his arguments on the interpretation of sub-Section (9) of Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. According to the learned counsel the manner of voting adopted by the presiding officer was inherently confusing and was thus not capable of bringing out correct results. At the time of the meeting one of the members prayed that the Voting should not be done openly but by secret ballot The prayer was accepted by the Presiding Officer. After explaining the method of voting the Presiding Officer went to his ante-chamber and called the voters one by one. He prepared one chit or slip of paper for each vote and signed the same. A person who wanted to vote in favour of the resolution was to put cross (X) mark and a person who wanted to oppose the motion of no-confidence was to put a tick (?) mark. According to the learned counsel such a 'method is not contemplated by the U. P. Municipalities Act and was in any case a confusing method. It has also been contended that the Presiding Officer had told the voters differently about the method, i.e. to some he gave out that cross (X) mark be put in case the motion of no-confidence was to be opposed and tick mark be put if the motion was to be supported.

3. The relevant words in Sub-section (9) of Section 87-A are 'the motion shall be put to the vote of the Board'. No method has been prescribed under the U. P. Municipalities Act for recording the vote of the Board. If the vote is open, the normal method is by show of hands. It may even be by voice vote, if possible. The law does not prohibit secret voting, In case of a resolution there has to be two types of votes one supporting the resolution and the other opposing the resolution. The Presiding Officer had thus to fix two marks to indicate the support or opposition to the motion. The marks set up by him are well-known marks and could not be deemed to be creating any sort of confusion The vote cannot therefore be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it violated the requirements of Sub-section (9) of Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act.

4. The petitioner has filed two affidavits in support of the contention that the Presiding Officer had wrongly informed the voters about the method of voting. One affidavit is by Prabhu Dayal Sharma and the other is by Sheo Nath Bhargava. Both these persons hove stated that the Presiding Officer had told them to put a cross (X) mark if the motionwas to be opposed and to put a tick mark if the motion of no-confidence was to be supported. The affidavits of these two persons are not reliable as they have sworn the contents of the affidavits in the following manner.

'Contents of paragraphs 1 to 12 of this affidavit are trass to my personal knowledge which all I believe to be true.'

There is no clarity thus in the swearing clause. In such a state oi affairs, if the affidavits have been disbelieved by the learned single Judge, we cannot take a different view. These two affidavits have been filed in support of the vague allegations in paragraph 23 of the writ petition. It appears that the copies of these affidavits had not been supplied to the Presiding Officer and that is why there is no specific denial. Paragraph 23 of the Writ Petition does not make any specific allegation to the effect that the Presiding Officer had misdirected the voters. It is thus not possible for us to place any reliance on these affidavits,

5. The Presiding Officer has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that at the meeting he had explained the whole procedure and had clearly told the members present at the meeting that persons desiring to vote in favour oi the motion should put A cross (X) mark and those opposing the motion should putt a tick (?) mark There is no specific denial of this assertion of the Presiding Officer by the petitioner. In the petition there was no allegation that the Presiding Officer had not exapained the procedure at the time of the meeting. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner also, there is no specific assertion that the Presiding Officer had not explained the procedure at the time of the meeting before the votes were taken. We are therefore unable to bold that any procedural error, had taken place in the conduct of the meeting or the recording of votes.

6. In the result, (the appead fails and is dismissed with casts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //