Mandatory removal safeguards for municipal members: void orders cannot defeat quorum or validate later proceedings.

Statutory removal of municipal members under the U. P. Municipalities Act required strict compliance with the grounds for absence and a prior, meaningful opportunity to explain the proposed action. Where the absence condition was not met and the notices failed to specify the intended removal, the orders were void. A void removal could not exclude the members from the Board, so they remained entitled to be counted for quorum and to participate in the non-confidence meeting. The doctrine of de facto vacancy under Section 113 did not cure an unauthorized removal or validate the consequential proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the orders removing the two members from the Municipal Board were valid under Section 40(1)(a) and Section 40(4) of the U. P. Municipalities Act; (ii) whether, if the removals were invalid, the two members had to be treated as continuing members so that the meeting on the non-confidence motion had a quorum and the minutes declaring absence of quorum were liable to be quashed; (iii) whether the doctrine of de facto vacancy under Section 113 defeated the challenge.

Issue (i): whether the orders removing the two members from the Municipal Board were valid under Section 40(1)(a) and Section 40(4) of the U. P. Municipalities Act.

Analysis: The statutory ground of removal required absence for more than three consecutive months or three consecutive meetings, whichever period was longer. On the facts, the period of absence did not satisfy that requirement. The notices calling for explanation were also defective because they did not specify the proposed action, and thus did not afford the explanation contemplated by the statute. Compliance with the statutory conditions and the opportunity of explanation were mandatory.

Conclusion: The removal orders were invalid and null and void.

Issue (ii): whether, if the removals were invalid, the two members had to be treated as continuing members so that the meeting on the non-confidence motion had a quorum and the minutes declaring absence of quorum were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: An order that is void confers no legal basis for excluding the members from the Board. They were therefore entitled to participate in the meeting, and their exclusion could not destroy the quorum. The judicial officer's minute treating the meeting as not held for want of quorum could not stand.

Conclusion: The two members continued as members for the purpose of the meeting, the quorum existed, and the minute was liable to be quashed.

Issue (iii): whether the doctrine of de facto vacancy under Section 113 defeated the challenge.

Analysis: The provision protecting proceedings where there is a vacancy in fact and in law did not apply to a case where the supposed removal itself was without authority and void. The separate rule concerning participation under colour of office also did not assist the appellants.

Conclusion: The contention based on Section 113 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The special appeals failed because the removal orders were unlawful, the meeting ought to have proceeded with the two members counted for quorum, and the challenge to the reconvening direction did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes specified conditions and a prior opportunity of explanation mandatory before removal of an elected municipal member, non-fulfilment of those conditions renders the removal void and the member must be treated as continuing in office for all consequential proceedings.

---