<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (5) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172566</link>
    <description>No-confidence and resignation provisions under the U.P. Municipalities Act apply to a President directly elected by the electorate as well as one elected by the Board. The statutory scheme treats the President and Board as integrated parts of municipal governance, and the Act distinguishes only the mode of election, not exposure to removal through a Board-initiated no-confidence motion. The proviso to the resignation provision does not limit that mechanism. Reducing the qualifying period for moving a no-confidence motion from two years to one year remains a legislative policy choice and does not violate Article 14 absent demonstrated arbitrariness or lack of legislative competence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172566</link>
      <description>No-confidence and resignation provisions under the U.P. Municipalities Act apply to a President directly elected by the electorate as well as one elected by the Board. The statutory scheme treats the President and Board as integrated parts of municipal governance, and the Act distinguishes only the mode of election, not exposure to removal through a Board-initiated no-confidence motion. The proviso to the resignation provision does not limit that mechanism. Reducing the qualifying period for moving a no-confidence motion from two years to one year remains a legislative policy choice and does not violate Article 14 absent demonstrated arbitrariness or lack of legislative competence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>