Written resignation and validly moved no-confidence motion under municipal law control the legality of councillor and chairperson proceedings.

A councillor's resignation is valid only if made in writing under hand, and an alleged acceptance in an adjourned meeting without any agenda for resignation had no legal effect; the later supervisory cancellation also confirmed the illegality. The Court further construed "calendar year" as 365 days and held that the statutory bar on repeating a no-confidence motion applies only where a resolution has actually been moved in the legal sense. An abortive proceeding that failed for want of quorum and was annulled did not amount to a moved resolution, so a subsequent motion against the Chairperson was not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purported acceptance of the councillors' resignations was valid in law under the municipal statute and rules. (ii) Whether the later no-confidence motion against the Chairperson was barred by the prohibition against moving such a resolution more than once during a calendar year.

Issue (i): Whether the purported acceptance of the councillors' resignations was valid in law under the municipal statute and rules.

Analysis: A councillor can resign only by writing under his hand. The record showed that the councillors denied having tendered any written resignation at all. The alleged acceptance also took place in an adjourned meeting where no agenda existed for taking up resignation, and no new item could validly be introduced. Under the municipal rules governing adjourned meetings, no business beyond what was contemplated in the original meeting could be transacted. The subsequent cancellation of the resolution by the State Government under its supervisory power reinforced the illegality of the alleged acceptance.

Conclusion: The purported acceptance of resignation was invalid and had no legal effect.

Issue (ii): Whether the later no-confidence motion against the Chairperson was barred by the prohibition against moving such a resolution more than once during a calendar year.

Analysis: The expression "calendar year" was construed to mean a period of 365 days. The Court further held that the statutory bar applies only when a no-confidence resolution has actually been "moved", meaning initiated and taken up as a resolution capable of being debated or decided. A meeting that failed for want of quorum and resulted only in annulment of the proposal could not be treated as a resolution moved within the meaning of the provision. On that reasoning, the earlier abortive proceedings did not attract the statutory bar against a subsequent motion.

Conclusion: The later no-confidence motion was not barred and was validly proceeded with.

Final Conclusion: Both writ petitions failed, and the challenge to the cancellation of the resignation acceptance as well as the challenge to the no-confidence proceedings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A no-confidence motion is barred only when a resolution has actually been moved within the statutory sense, and an aborted or annulled proposal for want of quorum is not equivalent to a moved resolution.

---