http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: OM NARAIN AGARWAL AND ORS.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAGAR PALIKA SHAHJAHANPUR AND ORS.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1993

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 1440            1993 SCR  (2)  34  1993 SCC  (2) 242        JT 1993 (4)   483  1993 SCALE  (1)663

ACT: United  Provinces Municipalities Act 1916: Section  9  First and Fourth provisos-Nominated women members to the Municipal Board-Cancellation  of  their nomination without  notice  by State  Government-Whether  Article 14  of  the  Constitution attracted-Doctrine of pleasure-Application of. Constitution  of  India, 1950:  Article  14-Nominated  Women members to the Municipal Board under Section 9 of the United Provinces  Municipalities  Act  1916-Cancellation  of  their nomination    without    notice   by    State    Government- Constitutionality of-Doctrine of pleasure-Application of.

HEADNOTE: In  January,  1989,  in accordance  with  First  Proviso  to Section 9 of the United Provinces Act, 1916 one Smt.   Sarla Devi was nominated by the State Government as the sole Woman member for the Municipal Board.  On 15.2.1990 U.P. Ordinance No.  2 of 1990 later on replaced by U.P. Act No. 19 of  1990 amended  the proviso of Section 9 of the Act substituting  a new  proviso,  providing  for the nomination  of  two  Women members  by  the State Government.  The Amendment  Act  also added  a fourth proviso to the Section which  provided  that the nomination of the two women members was at the  pleasure of the State Government. On  19.2.1990 the Government issuing a general  notification and  cancelled  nominations  of  Women  members  in  several Municipal Boards.  Cancelling the nomination of Smt.   Sarla Devi, Smt.  Abida and Smt.  Hazra Khatoon were nominated  by the Government on 19.4.1990. On 22.7.1991 under Section 87-A of the Act a no-  confidence motion against one Mohd.  Iqbal, the President of the  Board was   initiated   by  some  members  before   the   District Magistrate..  The  District Magistrate fixed  12.8.1991  for consideration of the confidence motion. On  2.8.1991, the Government nominated Smt Shyama  Devi  and Smt.  Baijanti Devi as the two women members of  the  Board, cancelling  the  nominations of Smt.  Abida  and  Smt  Hazra Khatoon. 35 On 9.8.1991 Mohd.  Iqbal, President of the Municipal  Board, against whom the non-confidence motion was pending, filed  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

writ   petition   in   the  High   Court   challenging   the constitutional  validity of the fourth proviso to Section  9 of  the  Act  and also  challenged  the  notification  dated 2.8.1991.  Further  he  challenged the  proceedings  of  no- confidence motion initiated against him. The  High  Court  did not grant any  stay  of  no-confidence proceedings,  but  ordered  that  the  outcome  of  the  no- confidence proceedings shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. In the meeting fixed on 12.8.1991 by the District Magistrate to consider the no-confidence motion 20 members of the Board voted  in  favour of the no-confidence motion,  out  of  the total  strength  of  37 members of  the  Board.   The  newly nominated  Women  members  by  notification  dated  2.8.1991 participated  in  the meeting, whereas Smt Abida  and  Hazra Khatoon  neither attended the meeting nor claimed any  right to attend the same. The no-confidence motion dated 12.8.1991 was passed  against Mohd.   Iqbal.  One Om Narain, The appellant No. 1  in  C.A. Nos. 714-16 of 1993) who was the Vice-President of the Board was elected as the President in the vacancy.  The appellant- Om Narain took charge of the office of the President of  the Board and continued to function as the president. Mohd.   Iqbal,  the  former  President  filed  another  writ petition   challenging   the  no-confidence   motion   dated 12.8.1991  passed  against him.  Smt.  Abida and  Smt  Hazra Khatoon   also  filed  a  writ  petition,  challenging   the notification   dated   2.8.1991,   which   cancelled   their nominations  and  nominated  Smt.   Shyama  Devi  and   Smt. Baijanti Devi in their places. A Division Bench of the High Court considered all the  three writ  petitions  two by the former President and one by  the former  women  members.  Agreeing with the decision  in  Dr. Smt.  Rama Mishra v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.  11114 of  1990 disposed on 9.12.1991) allowed the writ  petitions, quashing the notification dated 2.8.1991 and declaring Mohd. Iqbal to be the president of the Board. The review application flied by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court. 36 Being  aggrieved  against  the High  Court’s  decision,  the former  Vice  President and the Women members  nominated  by notification  dated 2.8.1991 approached this Court in  these appeals  (C.A.Nos. 714-716 of 1993) by special  leave.   The C.&  No. 717 of 1993 was by another Woman member of  another Municipal  Board, having aggrieved against the  judgment  of the  High Court dated 9.12.1991 passed in Dr. Rama  Mishra’s case. The  appellants  contended that the view taken in  Dr.  Rama Mishra’s  case  was not correct and the view taken  in  Prem Kumar  Balmiki  v.  State of U.P. (W.P. No.  1067  of  1991, disposed  of  on  13.11.1991) was correct;  that  the  State Legislature  was competent to insert fourth proviso  and  to lay down that the nominated members shall hold office during the  pleasure of the State Government; that if  the  initial appointment   by   nomination   was   made   on    political considerations,  political considerations should be  allowed to   operate  in  terminating  such  appointments  made   by nomination; that there was no violation of any principle  of natural justice nor such provision was arbitrary so as to be violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution; and  that  the only  requirement under the second proviso to Section  9  of the Act was that if none or only one of the members  elected under  clause (b) was a woman, the State Government  was  to nominate by notification two Women members or one more Woman

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

member,  as  the case may be, so that the  number  of  Women members  in  the Board was not less than two, and  that  the State Government did not violate the provision. The  private  respondents submitted that once the  power  of nominating  the  Women members was exercised  by  the  State Government,  such  nominated members could  not  be  removed prior  to  the completion of the term of the  Board,  unless they were removed on the grounds contained under section  40 of  the Act; that the State Government could not be  allowed to  remove  a  nominated  member  at  its  pleasure  without assigning  any reason and without affording any  opportunity to  show cause; that once a Woman member was nominated,  she got  a  vested right to hold the office of a member  of  the Board  and  the  State  Government could  not  be  given  an uncanalised, uncontrolled and arbitrary power to remove such member;  that  such arbitrary power without  any  guidelines would  be  contrary to the well  established  principles  of democracy  and  public policy and that it would  hamper  the local bodies to act independently without any hindrance from the side of the Government. 37 Allowing the appeals, this Courts, HELD:     1.01.  The  right  to seek an election  or  to  be elected or nominated to a statutory body, depends and arises under  a statute.  The initial nomination of the  two  Women members  itself  depended  on the  pleasure  and  subjective satisfaction of the State Government.  If such  appointments made  initially  by nomination are based on  political  con- siderations,  there can be no violation of any provision  of the Constitution in case the  Legislature   authorised   the State Government to terminate such appointment    at     its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. [50G-H] 1.02.     The  nominated  members do not have  the  will  or authority  of  any residents of the Municipal  Board  behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member.  In case of an elected member, the Legislature has provided  the grounds  in  Section 40 of the Act under which  the  members could  be removed, But so far as the nominated  members  are concerned,  the  Legislature in its wisdom has  proved  that they   shall  hold  office  during  the  pleasure   of   the Government. [51B] 1.03.     Such provision neither offends any Article of  the Constitution  nor the same is against any public  policy  or democratic  norms enshrined in the Constitution.   There  is also  no question of any violation of principles of  natural justice  in not affording any opportunity to  the  nominated members  before  their  removal nor the  removal  under  the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of  the nominated members.  It is done purely  on  political considerations. [51D] 1.04.     In Dr. Rama Mishra’s case, the High Court  wrongly held  that  the  pleasure doctrine  incorporated  under  the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative of  the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and Article 15(3) of the Constitution. [51E] Dr.  Smt.  Rama Mishra v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 11 114  of  1990  decided on 9.12.1991 by  the  Allahabad  High Court, over-ruled. Prem  Kumar Balmiki v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No.  1067 of  1991 decided on 13.11.1991 by the Allahabad High  Court, approved. 1.05.     The special provision contained for nominating one or two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

38 women  members as the case may be provided in Section  9  of the  Act would be protected from challenge under clause  (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution. [52B] 1.06.     The provision of pleasure doctrine incorporated by adding  proviso four does not, in any manner, take away  the right  to representation of women members in the Board,  but it  only permits the State Government to keep the  nominated women members of its own choice. [52C] 1.07.     The  right of equality enshrined under Article  14 of  the Constitution applies to equals and not to  unequals. The nominated members of the Board fall in a different class and cannot claim equality with the elected members. [52E] 1.08.  Even  in  the case of highest  functionaries  in  the Government  like the Governors, the Ministers, the  Attorney General  and  the Advocate General  discharge  their  duties efficiently,  though  removable  at  the  pleasure  of   the competent  authority  under the law, and it cannot  be  said that they are bound to demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge their functions in  a  proper manner during the period they  remain  in  the office. [52G] 1.09.  The  motion of no-confidence being  supported  by  20 members which admittedly constituted a majority of the total strength  of  the  members of the Board being  37,  the  no- confidence  motion  has been rightly carried out  and  as  a result of which Mohd.  Iqbal was not entitled to continue as President  of  the Board.  Similarly, Smt.  Abida  and  Smt. Hazra  Khatoon  having  been rightly  removed  as  nominated members,  they  are  no  longer  entitled  to  continue   as nominated  members of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur  and in  their  place Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.   Baijanti  Devi shall  be entitled to continue as nominated members  of  the Board. [53C-D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  714-16  of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.92 of the  Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  W.P. Nos. 20731, 23861 & 24353 of 1991.                             AND Civil Appeal No. 717 of 1993. 39 From  the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.91 of the  Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  W.P.No. 11114 of 1990. D.V. Sehgal, Ravi Kiran Jain, Sunil Gupta, Jamshed Bey, H.K. Puri, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and R.B. Misra for the Appellants. Sabir Hussain Saif, Shakeel Ahmed Syed, Bahar U. Barqi, Anis Suhrawardy and Vijay Hansaria for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted. As common questions of fact and law are involved in all  the above  cases,  as such they are disposed of  by  one  single order.   First proviso to Section 9 of the United  Provinces Municipalities  Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to  as  ’the Act’) provided for nomination of only one woman as a  member of  the Municipal Board by the State  Government.   Further, there  was no provision permitting the State  Government  to cancel  the nomination of such member at its pleasure.   One Smt.   Sarla Devi was nominated by the State  Government  as the  sole Woman member for the Shahjahanpur Municipal  Board (hereinafter  referred to as ’the Board) in  January,  1989.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

By  U.P.  Ordinance  No. 2 of 1990  later  on  succeeded  by Ordinance No. 8 of 1990 and eventually replaced by U.P.  Act No. 19 of 1990, the aforesaid first proviso to Section 9  of the  Act  was  substituted by  another  proviso  which  made provision  for  the nomination of two women members  by  the State Government.  Further, a fourth proviso was also  added to  Section 9 of the Act which provided that the  nomination of  the  aforesaid two members was at the  pleasure  of  the State Government.  The aforesaid Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 was promulgated on 15.2.1990. Soon  thereafter  on 19.2.1990, a general  notification  was issued by the State Government cancelling of nominations  of Women members in several Municipal Boards in Uttar  Pradesh. The nomination of Smt.  Sarla Devi also stood cancelled.  On 19.4.1990,  the State Government nominated Smt.   Abida  and Hazra  Khatoon  as  members of the  Board  under  the  newly introduced  fourth  proviso to Section 9 of  the  Act.   The total  strength of the Board was 37 including two  nominated women members.  On 22.7.1991 Mohd.  Iqbal was the  President of  the  Board  and Shri Om Narain  Agarwal  was  the  Vice- President of the Board.  Some members of the Board on 40 22.7.1991initiated no-confidence motion against Mohd.  Iqbal before  the  District  Magistrate  in  accordance  with  the procedure  prescribed  under Section 87-A of the  Act.   The District Magistrate fixed 12.8.1991 for consideration of the no-confidence motion.  In the meantime, the State Government on  2.8.1991  in  exercise of its powers  under  the  fourth proviso  to  Section  9  of  the  Act  issued   notification cancelling the nominations of Smt.  Abida and Hazra  Khatoon and  in  their place nominated Smt.  Shyama  Devi  and  Smt. Baijanti  Devi  as the two women members of the  Board.   On 9.8.1991  Mohd.   Iqbal filed a Writ Petition No.  20731  of 1991  in  the  High  Court  challenging  the  constitutional validity  of the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the  Act  as well as the notification dated 2.8.1991 whereby the  nomina- tions of Smt.  Abida and Hazra Khatoon were cancelled and in their  place Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.  Baijanti Devi  were nominated.   Mohd. lqbal also challenged the proceedings  of no-confidence motion initiated against him.  The High  Court in  the  aforesaid  Writ Petition passed  an  interim  order stating that outcome of the no-confidence proceedings  shall be  subject to the result of the Writ Petition but  did  not grant  any stay of no-confidence proceedings.  Smt.   Shyama Devi  and  Smt.  Baijanti Devi participated in  the  meeting held  on  12.8.1991  and so far as  Smt.   Abida  and  Hazra Khatoon  are  concerned,  they  neither  attended  the  said meeting  nor claimed any right to attend the same.   In  the aforesaid meeting held on 12.8.1991, 20 members of the Board voted  in  favour of the no- confidence motion  out  of  the total  strength of 37 members of the Board.  After  the  no- confidence motion dated 12.8.1991 having been passed against Mohd.  lqbal,  a casual vacancy arose in the Office  of  the President of the Board by virtue of Section 47-A of the  Act and  Shri Om Narain the then Vice-President was  elected  as President  of the Board.  Om Narain took charge of the  said Office  and continued to function as  President  thereafter. Mohd.   Iqbal then filed another Writ Petition No. 23861  of 1991  on  20th August, 1991  challenging  the  no-confidence motion  dated 12.8.1991 passed against him.  The High  Court refused  to pass any stay order in favour of  Mohd.   Iqbal. Smt.   Abida  and  Smt.  Hazra Khatoon  also  filed  a  Writ Petition  No.  24353 of 1991 on  12.9.1991  challenging  the cancellation  of  their  nominations  and  nominating   Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt.  Baijanti Devi in their place.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

A Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad  High Court  in Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1991 Prem Kumar  Balmiki v.  State  of U.P. by order dated 13.11.1991 held  that  the fourth  proviso to Section 9 of the Act  was  constitutional and valid and any notification issued by the State 41 Government under the said provision was also valid.  Another Division  Bench  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  sitting  at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 11114 of 1990 Dr. Smt.   Rama Mishra v. State of U.P. by ’order dated 9.12.1991 held  that the  fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act  was  arbitrary, unreasonable,   unconstitutional   and   invalid   and   any notification issued thereunder cancelling the nomination  of any  woman member of the Board and nominating a  new  member was  invalid.  A Division Bench of the Allahabad High  Court considered all the three Writ Petitions, two filed by  Mohd. Iqbal and one by Smt.  Abida and Smt.  Hazra Khatoon and  by a  common order dated 14.9.1991 recorded its agreement  with the   decision  in  Rama  Mishra’s  case  and  quashed   the notification  dated  2.8.1991 whereby Smt.  Abida  and  Smt. Hazra  Khatoon were ousted and in their place  Smt.   Shyama Devi  and  Smt.   Baijanti  Devi  were  nominated  and  also declared Mohd.  Iqbal to be the President of the Board.   In this  judgment the High Court though followed Rama  Mishra’s case  but  failed  to take notice of  the  decision  of  the Lucknow  Bench of the High Court dated 13.11.1991  given  in Prem Kumar Balmiki’s case.  A review application filed by Om Narain  and others was also dismissed by the High  Court  by order dated 21.9.1992. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the High  Court, Om Narain Agarwal  former Vice-President, Smt.  Shyama  Devi and  Smt.   Bailjanti Devi have come in  appeal  by  Special Leave  Petition Nos. 13621-23 of 1992.  Smt.   Bashiran  who was a nominated woman member in the Municipality of Varanasi and  whose nomination was subsequently cancelled  has  filed Special  Leave  Petition  No.  13004  of  1992  against  the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9.12.1991  passed in Dr. Rama Mishra’s case. The  Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned  order dated  14.9.1992 has agreed with the view taken in Dr.  Rama Mishra’s  case.   After taking the aforesaid view  the  High Court held that the State Government had no power to  cancel the  nominations of Smt.  Abida and Smt.  Hazra Khatoon  and to  nominate  Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.  Baijanti  Devi  in their  place.   The  High Court as a  result  of  the  above finding  held  that the notification dated  2.8.1991  was  a nullity  and that being so, the earlier  notification  dated 19.4.1990  nominating  Smt.  Abida and Smt.   Hazra  Khatoon remained operative.  The High Court then considered the next question as to what was the effect of the notification dated 2.8.1991   and  the  motion  of  no-confidence   passed   on 12.8.1991. The High Court in this 42 regard took the view that the total strength of the  members was 37 and the motion of no-confidence was carried out by 20 members  including  the two nominated members  Smt.   Shyama Devi  and Smt.  Baijanti Devi.  As nomination of  these  two women  members  was  declared  to  be  invalid,  their  par- ticipation and voting right shall have to be ignored and  in that  view of the matter, proceedings dated 12.8.1991  shall be  considered as having been attended only by  18  eligible members and the motion cannot be deemed to have been carried by  a  majority  of the members consisting of  at  least  19 members.   The  High Court thus held that the  provision  of Section  87-A  (12)  of  the Act  being  mandatory  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

resolution  of  no-confidence having not been  passed  by  a requisite majority the entire proceedings held on  12.8.1991 relating  to the motion of no-confidence was non est and  as such  the  resolution of no-confidence  passed  therein  was void.  The High Court also repelled the contention that till the nomination of Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.  Baijanti  Devi was  declared void, all acts done by them will be  protected by  de  facto doctrine.  The High Court  also  repelled  the contention  that  the  nomination of Smt.   Abida  and  Smt. Hazra Khatoon vide notification dated 19.4.1990 should  also be declared invalid on the analogy on which the notification dated  2.8.1991  nominating  Smt.   Shyama  Devi  and   Smt. Baijanti Devi has been declared invalid.  The High Court  in this regard held that the notification dated 19.4.1990 shall remain operative unless the same is challenged and  declared to be void.  It was also held by the High Court that in view of the interim order passed on 9.8.1991 in Writ Petition No. 20731 of 1991 to the effect that the result of no-confidence motion  shall  be  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  Writ Petition,  Section 47-A(1)(b) of the Act cannot  be  invoked against the writ petitioner.  The High Court after recording the above findings passed the following operative order:-               "In the result the Writ Petition No. 20731  of               1991  is partly allowed and  the  notification               dated   2.8.1991  (Annexure  No.  3   to   the               Petition)  is quashed.  The Writ Petition  No.               23861 of 1991 succeeds and is allowed and  the               entire  proceedings  taken up in  the  meeting               dated  12.8.1991 including the  resolution  of               no-confidence  passed against  the  petitioner               are quashed.  Annexures No. 1 and 1 A to  this               petition  are  quashed.  The  respondents  are               directed    not   to   interfere   with    the               petitioner’s  working  as  President  of   the               Municipal   Board,  Shahjahanpur.   The   Writ               Petition  No.  24353 of 1991 succeeds  and  is               allowed.  Notification dated 2.8.1991 (An-               43               nexure  No.  1 to this  petition  having  been               quashed, the respondents are directed to treat               the  petitioners as members of  the  Municipal               Board, Shahjahanpur and permit them to act  as               such.  No order as to costs." Before  considering the arguments advanced on behalf of  the appellants,  it  would be necessary to  state  the  relevant provisions  of the Act namely, Sections 9, 47-A and 87-A  of the Act.  Section 9 of the Act including the amendment added from 15.2.1990 is reproduced as under:-               "[Section 9. Normal composition of the board.-               Except as otherwise provided by Section 10,  a               Board shall consist of-               (a)   The President;               (b)   The  elected  members who shall  not  be               less  than  10 and not more than  40,  as  the               State  Government may by notification  in  the               Official Gazette specify;               (c)   The  ex officio members  comprising  all               members  of the House of People and the  State               Legislative   Assembly  whose   constituencies               include the whole or part of the limits of the               Municipality;]               [(d) Ex-officio members comprising all members               of  the  Council  of  States  and  the   State               Legislative  Council who have their  residence               within the limits of the Municipality.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

             Explanation.-               For the purposes of this clause, the place  of               residence of a member of the Council of States               or  the  State Legislative  Council  shall  be               deemed  to  be  the  place  of  his  residence               mentioned in the notification of his  election               or nomination, as the case may be] :               [Provided that if none of the members  elected               under  clause  (b),  is  a  woman,  the  State               Government may by a like notification nominate               one  woman  as  a  member  of  the  Board  and               thereupon, the normal composition of the               44               Board shall stand varied to that extent]               [Provided  that  if none or only  one  of  the               members elected under clause (b), is a  woman,               the  State  Government may,  by  notification,               nominate  two women members or one more  woman               member, as the case may be, so that the number               of women members in the Board is not less than               two  and thereupon the normal  composition  of               the Board shall stand varied to that extent]               [Provided  further that if any member  of  the               State  Legislative  Council  representing  the               Local  Authorities Constituency does not  have               his   residence  within  the  limits  of   any               Municipality,  he  will be deemed  to  be  ex-               officio member of the board of such one of the               municipalities     situated     within     his               constituency as he may choose :               Provided  also  that if none  of  the  members               elected  under  clause (b)  belongs  to  safai               mazdoor  class, the State Government  may,  by               notification,  nominate a person belonging  to               the  said  class a member of  the  Board,  and               thereupon the normal composition of the  Board               shall stand varied to that extent.               Explanation :               A  person  shall be deemed to  belong  to  the               Safai  Mazdoor class if he belongs to  such  a               class  of scavengers by occupation or to  such               of  the  Scheduled Castes  traditionally  fol-               lowing  such occupation as may be notified  by               the State Government] :               [Provided  also that a member nominated  under               this section, whether before or after February               15, 1990 shall hold office during the pleasure               of  the State Government, but not  beyond  the               term of the Board.]"               "[47-A.   Resignation of President of vote  of               non-confidence.-               (1)   If  a  motion of non-confidence  in  the               President has               45               been  passed by the board and communicated  to               the   President   in   accordance   with   the               provisions  of  Section  87-A,  the  President               shall               (a)   With three days or the (receipt) of such               communication,  either  resign his  office  or               represent   to   the   State   Government   to               (supersede)  the  board  stating  his  reasons               therefore, and               [(b) unless he resigns under clause (a), cease               to  hold office of President on the expiry  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

             three  days after the date of receipt of  such               communication, and thereupon a casual  vacancy               shall be deemed to have occurred in the office               of the President within the meaning of Section               44-A:               Provided  that.if  a representation  has  been               made  in accordance with clause (a) the  board               shall not elect a President until an order has               been  made by the State Government under  sub-               section (3)].               [(2) ****]               (3)   If  a  representation has been  made  in               accordance  with  sub-section (1),  the  State               Government  may  after  considering  the  same               [either  supersede the board for such  period,               not exceeding the remainder of the term of the               board,  as  may be specified,  or  reject  the               representation.]               [(4)*****]               [(5)*********]               [(6)  If the State Government  supersedes  the               board  under sub-section (3) the  consequences               mentioned  in  Section 31 shall follow  as  if               there  had been a supersession  under  Section               30.’]               "[87-A.   Motion  of  non-confidence   against               President.               (1)   Subject   to  the  Provisions  of   this               section, a motion expressing non-confidence in               the President shall be made               46               only  in  accordance with the  procedure  laid               down below.               [(2)  Written  notice of intention to  make  a               motion  of  no-confidence  in  its   President               signed by such number of members of the  Board               as  constitute no less than [one-half] of  the               total number of members of the Board  together               with a copy of the motion which it is proposed               to make shall be delivered in person  together               by  any two of the members signing the  notice               to the District Magistrate.]               (3)   The   District  Magistrate  shall   then               convene a meeting for the consideration of the               motion to be held at the office of the  board,               on  the date and at the time appointed by  him               which shall not be earlier than thirty and not               later  than thirty-five days from the date  on               which  the  notice under sub-section  (2)  was               delivered to him.  He shall send by registered               post not less than seven clear days before the               date of the meeting, a notice of such  meeting               and  of the date and time appointed  therefor,               to  every member of the board at his place  of               residence  and  shall at the same  time  cause               such notice to be published in such manner  as               he may deem fit.  Thereupon every member shall               be deemed to have received the notice.               (4)   The  District Magistrate  shall  arrange               with  the  District Judge  for  a  stipendiary               civil  judicial  officer  to  preside  at  the               meeting  convened under this section,  and  no               other person shall preside thereat.  If within               half  an hour from the time appointed for  the               meeting,  the judicial officer is not  present

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

             to  preside at the meeting, the meeting  shall               stand adjourned to the date and the time to be               appointed and notified to the members by  that               officer under sub-section (5).               (5)   If  the  judicial officer is  unable  to               preside   at  the  meeting,  he   may,   after               recording  his reasons adjourn the meeting  to               such  other date and time as he  may  appoint,               but not later than fifteen days from the  date               appointed  for the meeting under sub-  section               (3).   He shall without delay  communicate  in               writing to the District Magistrate the               47               adjournment  of the meeting.  It shall not  be               necessary  to send notice of the date and  the               time  of the adjourned meeting to the  members               individually,  but  the  District   Magistrate               shall give notice of the date and the time  of               the  adjourned meeting by publication  in  the               manner provided in sub-section (3).               (6)   Save as provided in sub-sections (4) and               (5)  a  meeting convened for  the  purpose  of               considering a motion under this section  shall               not for any reason be adjourned.               (7)   As  soon as the meeting  convened  under               this  section  has  commenced,  the   judicial               officer shall read to the board the motion for               the   consideration  of  which  it  has   been               convened  and  declare  it  to  be  open   for               discussion.               (8)   No  discussion on any motion under  this               section shall               be    adjourned.               (9)   Such   discussion  shall   automatically               terminate  on the expiry of three  hours  from               the time appointed for the commencement of the               meeting, unless it is concluded earlier.  Upon               the  conclusion  of  the debate  or  upon  the               expiry  of the said period of three hours,  as               the  case may be, the motion shall be  put  to               the vote of the board.               (10)  The judicial officer shall not speak  on               the  merits  of the motion, nor  shall  he  be               entitled to vote thereon.               (11)  A  copy  of the minutes of  the  meeting               together  with  a copy of the motion  and  the               result  of  the voting thereon  shall  on  the               termination  of  the  meeting,  be   forwarded               forthwith  by  the  judicial  officer  to  the               [President and the] District Magistrate               [Provided  that  if the President  refuses  or               avoids  to  take  delivery of  the  copies  so               forwarded,  the same shall be affixed  at  the               outer door of his last Known residence and .he               shall  be deemed to have received the same  at               the time such affixation is made.]               48               [(11-A.] As soon as may be after three days of               the  receipt of the copies mentioned  in  sub-               section  (11), the District  Magistrate  shall               forward  the  same to  the  State  Government,               together,  in the event of the motion of  non-               confidence having been carried, with a  report               whether or not the President has forwarded his               resignation in accordance with the  provisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

             of Sections 47 and 47-A;]               [(12) The motion shall be deemed to have, been               carried  only  when it has been  passed  by  a               majority of [more than one-half] of the  total               number of members of the Board.]               [(13)  If  the  motion is  not  carried  by  a               majority  as  aforesaid,  or  if  the  meeting               cannot be held for want of quorum which  shall               not  be  less  than two-thirds  of  the  total               number  of members of the Board, for the  time               being, no. notice of any subsequent motion  of               no-confidence  in tic same President shall  be               received until after the expiry of a period of               two years from the date of the meeting.]               [(14)  No Notice of a motion of  no-confidence               under  this section shall be  received  within               two  years  of the assumption of office  by  a               President.]               [(15) Nothing done by any member of the board,               the District Magistrate, the judicial  officer               or the [State Government] in pursuance of  the               provisions of this section shall be questioned               in any Court.]" It  was contended on behalf of the appellants that the  view taken  in  Dr.  Rama Mishra’s case was not correct  and  the view taken by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High  Court in Prem Kumar Balmiki’s case was correct.  It was  submitted that  the  State Legislature was fully competent  to  insert fourth  proviso and to lay down that the  nominated  members shall   hold  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the   State Government.   It  was submitted that the  pleasure  doctrine also  finds place in several other enactments including  the Constitution of India.  It was submitted that under  Article 75  (2)  of  the  Constitution,  Ministers  of  the  Central Government hold office during the pleasure of the President. Similarly,  under  Article  164 (1), the  Ministers  in  the States of the Indian Union hold office during the pleasure 49 of  the  Governor.   Similarly, under Article  76  (1),  the President appoints Attorney General for India and in view of clause 4 of the said Article this office is held during  the pleasure  of  the  President.  It was  also  submitted  that Governors  for  the States are appointed  by  the  President under  Article 155 and under Article 156 (1),. the  Governor holds  office during the pleasure of the President.  It  was also contended that the Office of member of Municipal  Board is  a political office.  It was further argued that  if  the initial  appointment  by  nomination is  made  on  political considerations,  there  appears  no  reason  why   political consideration   should   not  be  allowed  to   operate   in terminating such appointments made by nomination.  In  these circumstances if the Legislature has itself added the fourth proviso  to  Section  9 of the  Act  authorising  the  State Government to allow the nominated member to hold the  Office during  the  pleasure of the State Government, there  is  no violation  of  any  principle of natural  justice  nor  such provision  is arbitrary so as to be violative of Article  14 of  the  Constitution.   It  was  contended  that  the  only requirement under the second proviso to Section 9 of the Act was  that if none or only one of the members  elected  under clause  (b)  is  a  woman,  the  State  Government  may   by notification,  nominate two women members or one more  woman member  as  the  case may be, so that the  number  of  women members in the Board is not less than two.  It was submitted that  the  State Government has not violated  the  aforesaid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

provision  inasmuch as Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.   Baijanti Devi  were nominated in place of Smt.  Abida and Smt.  hazra Khatoon and the number of two women members in the Board was kept intact. Learned  counsel for the private respondents submitted  that once the power of nominating the women members is  exercised by  the State Government, such nominated members  cannot  be removed  prior  to the completion of the term of  the  Board unless  they  are  removed on the  grounds  contained  under Section 40 of the Act.  It was also contended that the State Government cannot be allowed to remove a nominated member at its  pleasure  without  assigning  any  reason  and  without affording  any  opportunity  to show cause.   Once  a  woman member  is  nominated she gets a vested right  to  hold  the office  of  a member of the Board and the  State  Government cannot  be given an uncanalised, uncontrolled and  arbitrary power  to  remove such member.  It is  contended  that  such arbitrary  and naked power without any guidelines  would  be contrary to the well established principles of democracy and public policy.  It would hamper the local bodies to act 50 independently  without  any hindrance from the side  of  the Government. Section  10-A  of the Act prescribes the term of  the  Board which  is  five years.  Section 38 prescribes  the  term  of office  of  members  elected or  nominated  to  fill  casual vacancies and reads as under:-               "The  term  of office of a member  elected  to               fill  a casual vacancy or a vacancy               remaining  unfilled  at the  general  election               shall  begin  upon  the  declaration  of   his               election  under  the  Act  and  shall  be  the               remainder of the term of the Board." Section 39 deals with resignation by a member of the  Board. Section  40 provides the grounds for removal of a member  of the  Board.   Sub-section  (5)  of  Section  40  deals  with suspension  of  a  member.   From a  perusal  of  the  above provisions  it  is  clear that the term  of  an  elected  or nominated  member  is  con-terminous with the  term  of  the Board.   The normal term of the Board is five years, but  it may  be curtailed as well as extended.  If the term  of  the Board is curtailed by dissolution or supersession, the  term of  the member also gets curtailed.  Similarly, if the  term of  the  Board is extended, the term of the member  is  also extended.   Apart  from  the curtailment of the  term  of  a member  of the Board by dissolution of supersession  of  the Board  itself, the term of a member also gets  curtailed  by his  resignation or by his removal from office.  Section  40 specifically  provides  the grounds under  which  the  State Government  in  the  case  of  a  city,  or  the  prescribed authority  in  any other case, may remove a  member  of  the Board.   The removal under Saction 40 applies to elected  as well  as  nominated  members.  In  respect  of  a  nominated member,  power of curtailment of term has now been given  to the  State Government under the fourth proviso to Section  9 added  after the third proviso through the amending  Act  of 1990.   In  the cases before us, we are concerned  with  the removal  of  nominated members under the fourth  proviso  to Section  9  of  the Act and we are not  concerned  with  the removal as contained in Section 40 of the Act.  The right to seek  an  election  or  to be  elected  or  nominated  to  a statutory  body,  depends and arises under  a  statute,  The initial nomination of the two women members itself  depended on  the  pleasure and subjective satisfaction of  the  State Government.    If  such  appointments  made   initially   by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

nomination are based on political considerations, there  can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the Legislature 51 authorised   the   State  Government   to   terminate   such appointment  at its pleasure and to nominate new members  in their place.  The nominated members do not have the will  or authority  of  any residents of the Municipal  Board  behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member.  In case of an elected member, the legislature has provided  the grounds  in  Section 40 of the Act under which  the  members could  be removed.  But so far as the nominated members  are concerned,  the Legislature in its wisdom has provided  that they  shall hold office during the pleasure of  the  Govern- ment.   It  has  not  been  argued  from  the  side  of  the respondents  that  the  Legislature had  no  such  power  to legislate  the  fourth  proviso.  The  attack  is  based  on Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.  In our view, such provision neither offends any Article  of the  Constitution nor the same is against any public  policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution.  There is also  no question of any violation of principles of  natural justice  in not affording any opportunity to  the  nominated members  before  their  removal nor the  removal  under  the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of  the nominated members.  It is done purely  on  political considerations.   In Dr. Rama Mishra’s case, the High  Court wrongly  held that the pleasure doctrine incorporated  under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative  of the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and  Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.  We are  unable  to agree  with  the  aforesaid reasoning  of  the  High  Court. Clause  (3) of Article 15 is itself an exception to  Article 14   and  clauses  (1)  and  (2)  of  Article  15   of   the Constitution.   Under Article 14, a duty is enjoined on  the State not to deny any person equality before the law or  the equal protection of the laws within the territory of  India. Article   15   (1)  provides  that  the  State   shall   not discriminate   against  any  citizen  on  grounds  only   of religion,  race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of  them. Article  15 (2) provides that no citizen shall,  on  grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them  .be subject to any disability, liability,  restriction or condition with regard to (a)  access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and  places of public entertainments; or (b)  the  use  of  wells, tanks, bathing  ghats,  roads  and places  of public resort maintained wholly or partly out  of State funds or dedicated to the 52 use of the general public. Thereafter  Article  15 (3) provides that  nothing  in  this Article  shall  prevent the State from  making  any  special provision  for women and children.  This means that in  case any special provision is made for women, the same would  not be violative on the ground of sex which is prohibited  under clauses  (1)  and  (2) of Article 15  of  the  Constitution. Thus, the special provision contained for nominating one  or two  women members as the case may be provided in Section  9 of  the Act would be protected from challenge  under  clause (3)  of  Article  15 of the Constitution.  It  may  also  be worthwhile  to note that the provision of pleasure  doctrine incorporated by adding proviso four does not, in any manner, take  away the right of representation of women  members  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

the Board, but it only permits the State Government to  keep the  nominated  women members of its own choice.   The  High Court in Dr. Rama Mishra’s case took a wrong view in holding that  the  fourth  proviso  to Section  9  of  the  Act  was violative  of  Article 15 (3) of the Constitution  under  an erroneous  impression  that  this provision  in  any  manner curtailed the representation of women members in the  Board. We  are not impressed with the reasoning given by  the  High Court that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act in any manner  deprived  the  fundamental  right  of  equality   as enshrined  in  Article 14 of the Constitution.  It  is  well established  that  the  right of  equality  enshrined  under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not  to enequals.   The  nominated members of the Board  fall  in  a different  class and cannot claim equality with the  elected members.   We are also not impressed with the argument  that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State  Government and is bound to demoralise  the  nominated members in the discharge of their duties as a member in  the Board.  We do not find any justification for drawing such an inference, inasmuch as, such contingency usually arises only with the change of ruling party in the Government.  Even  in the case of highest functionaries in the Government like the Governors,  the  Ministers,  the Attorney  General  and  the Advocate General discharge their duties efficiently,  though removable  at the pleasure of the competent authority  under the  law,  and  it cannot be said that  they  are  bound  to demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such  do  not discharge their functions in a  proper  manner during the period they remain in the office. Thus,  in the circumstances mentioned above, we are  clearly of the 53 view  that the decision in Dr. Rama Mishra’s case  does  not lay  down.  the .correct law and is overruled and  the  view taken by the High Court in Prem Kumar Balmiki’s case (supra) is  held to be correct.  We do not consider it necessary  to dwell upon other arguments made before us or made and  dealt with by the High Court, as the above appeals can be disposed of on the point already dealt and decided by us.  Thus, as a result  of the view taken by us, we hold that  Smt.   Shyama Devi  and  Smt.  Baijanti Devi, the two women.  members  had been  rightly  nominated in place of Smt.   Abida  and  Smt. Hazra Khatoon and were entitled to take part in the  meeting held  on  12.8.1991  for  considering  the  motion  of   no- confidence  against  Mohd.  Iqbal, the  President  of  Nagar Palika  Shahjahanpur.  Further, the motion of  no-confidence being supported by 20 members which admittedly constituted a majority  of the total strength of the members of the  Board being 37, the no-confidence motion has been rightly  carried out and as a result of which Mohd. Iqbal was not entitled to continue as President of the Board.  Similarly, Smt.   Abida and  Smt.   Hazra  Khatoon having been  rightly  removed  as nominated  members, they are no longer entitled to  continue as  nominated members of the Municipal  Board,  Shahjahanpur and in their place Smt.  Shyama Devi and Smt.  Baijanti Devi shall  be entitled to continue as nominated members  of  the Board. In  the  result,  all the above  appeals  are  allowed,  the judgment of the High Court dated 14.9.1992 in Writ  Petition Nos.  20731  of 1991, 23861 of 1991 and 24353  of  1991  and dated  9.12.1991 in Writ Petition No. 11114 of 1990 are  set aside and all the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand  dismissed. No order as to costs. V.P.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

Appeals allowed. 54