Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite disputed questions of fact and availability of a civil suit; (ii) whether the no-confidence motion against the municipal president was validly carried and whether a specific ground or signatures of councillors were legally required; (iii) whether the Collector's inquiry and order were vitiated for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.
Issue (i): whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite disputed questions of fact and availability of a civil suit
Analysis: Article 226 confers a wide and discretionary jurisdiction on the High Court to deal with questions of fact as well as law. The existence of disputed facts does not by itself bar writ relief. A suit may be declined where it would be neither adequate nor efficacious and would defeat timely relief. The High Court may, in appropriate cases, resolve factual controversy on affidavits and limited cross-examination where the controversy so requires.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the High Court was justified in not relegating the matter to a civil suit.
Issue (ii): whether the no-confidence motion against the municipal president was validly carried and whether a specific ground or signatures of councillors were legally required
Analysis: Section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 requires a motion of no confidence to be carried by not less than two-thirds of the total number of councillors. The provision does not require the motion, once moved, to rest on any specific charge or ground. A no-confidence motion is distinct from a censure motion and depends on loss of confidence, not on proof of misconduct. The absence of signatures of councillors present at the meeting was not a statutory requirement. On the material considered by the High Court, the requisite majority had supported the motion.
Conclusion: The no-confidence motion was validly passed and the appellant had ceased to hold the office of President.
Issue (iii): whether the Collector's inquiry and order were vitiated for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice
Analysis: The Collector undertook an inquiry into the validity of the no-confidence motion and the alleged vacancy in office. The High Court held that the procedure adopted was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the interested persons were not heard. That procedural infirmity was sufficient to invalidate the Collector's order, irrespective of whether jurisdiction otherwise existed.
Conclusion: The Collector's order was liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision failed because the no-confidence motion was upheld on merits and the procedural objections to the writ remedy and the Collector's order did not alter that result.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 may be entertained even where facts are disputed if the remedy is otherwise inadequate, and a motion of no confidence under the municipal law is valid upon securing the prescribed majority without any legal requirement to state specific grounds.