JUDGMENT
S.S. Jha, J.
1. Appellant was elected as President of the Municipal Council, Sironj, District Vidisha in December, 1999. He was aggrieved by the Resolution dated 17-2-2003 (Annexure P-4) with the writ petition whereby 3/4th of the Councillors of the Municipal Council had moved a proposal for recalling the appellant under Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the “Act”). Petition filed by the appellant before the writ Court has been dismissed. Against this dismissal, this appeal is filed.
2. Counsel for the appellant contended that on 24-1-2002 proposal to recall the appellant from the post of President was submitted by the elected Councillors to the Collector-under Section 47 of the Act. Proposal was signed by 17 Councillors. On 1-2-2002 out of 17 Councillors, nine Councillors have informed the Collector that the proposal (Annexure P-2) with the writ petition was not signed by them voluntarily and they have signed the proposal under pressure. They prayed that the proposal for recalling the President should not be proceeded further. In view of the withdrawal of notice to recall by nine Councillors, proceedings were dropped as the Collector was not satisfied that the proposal to recall the President has been signed by 3/4th elected Councillors. Appellant contended that since the proposal to recall the President had failed, the subsequent proposal or action for recalling the President is not maintainable under the second proviso to Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, the said proposal is without jurisdiction and the Collector of the District has no jurisdiction to forward the proposal to the State Government and the State Government has no power to make a reference to the State Election Commission.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the earlier resolution was only a proposal and it was not a case of initiating proceedings. Learned Single Judge further held that present proposal which is signed by 17 Councillors on 17-2-2003 and has been forwarded to the State Government after due verification and satisfaction by the Collector is initiation of the proceedings to recall for the first time.
4. Counsel for the appellant contended that once the proposal is submitted to the Collector, it is the end of the matter and submission of
proposal for recalling the President amounts to initiating the proceedings for recall of the President. Once this power has been exercised by 3/4th of the Councillors of the Municipal Council, then subsequent proposal for recall is not maintainable.
5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that initiation of the proceedings would mean forwarding the proposal to the State Government by the Collector after due satisfaction. Until and unless proposal is forwarded by the Collector after due verification, proposal to recall is a proposal and the proceedings are initiated after the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act is fulfilled. He submitted that this resolution is maintainable.
6. Section 47 of the Act is reproduced below:–
“Recalling of President.– (1) Every President of a Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if he is recalled through a secret ballot by a majority of more than half of the total number of voters of the municipal area casting the vote in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed :
Provided that no such process of recall shall be initiated unless a proposal is signed by not less than three fourth of the total number of the elected Councillors and present to the Collector:
Provided further that no such process shall be initiated :–
(i) within a period of two years from the date on which such President is elected and enters his office; (ii) if half of the period of tenure of the President elected in a by-election has not expired : Provided also that process for recall of the President shall be initiated once in his whole term. (2) The Collector, after satisfying himself and verifying that the three fourth of the Councillors specified in Sub-section (1) have the proposal of recall, shall send the proposal to the State Government and the State Government shall make a reference to the State Election Commission. (3) On receipt of the reference, the State Election Commission shall arrange for voting on the proposal of recall in such manner as may be prescribed."
Thus, this section provides for the procedure for recalling the President. First proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 47 provides that no such process of recall shall be initiated unless a proposal is signed by not less than three fourth of the total number of elected Councillors and presented to the Collector. Second proviso puts a rider that no such process shall be initiated within two years from the date on which such President is elected and enters his office and half of the period of tenure of the President elected in a by-election has not expired.
Third proviso provides that the process for recall of the President shall be initiated once in his whole term. Sub-section (2) is clear and specific that the Collector, after satisfying himself and verifying that the three fourth of the Councillors specified in Sub-section (1) have the proposal of recall, shall send the proposal to the State Government and the State Government shall make a reference to the State Election Commission. Sub-section (3) provides that on receipt of the reference, the State Election Commission shall arrange for voting on the proposal of recall in such manner as may be prescribed.
7. Question involved in the case is when the proceedings for recall are deemed to be initiated ?
8. Language of Section 47 of the Act is clear. It provides that President of a Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if he is recalled through a secret ballot by a majority of more than a half of the total number of voters of the municipal area. First proviso provides that such process of recall shall be initiated if the proposal is signed by not less than three fourth of the total number of elected Councillors of the President to the Collector. Thus, from the first proviso, initiation of the process of recall starts when the proposal is signed by not less than three fourth of the total number of elected Councilors and the said proposal is presented to the Collector. Thus, for initiating the proceedings, requirement of law is that the proposal should be signed by not less than three fourth of the elected Councillors. However, this initiation shall be complete after the Collector has satisfied himself and verified that three fourth of the Councillors have signed the proposal of recall and after his satisfaction only, proposal to recall shall be sent to the State Government.
9. Thus, the language is clear and specific. Proceedings will be initialed only after three fourth of the Councillors have signed the proposal and verified by the Collector to his satisfaction. Until and unless the Collector has satisfied himself and verified that three fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal, proceedings for recall can not be said to be initiated. Mere submission of proposal is not sufficient unless the Collector has satisfied and verified that three fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal for recall voluntarily and once the Collector is satisfied and has forwarded the proposal to the State Government, then it will amount to initiation of process of recall.
10 In this case, earlier proposal of recall was signed by 17 Councillors and out of 17, 9 Councillors have retracted from the proposal to recall. Thus the Collector was not satisfied on verification that the proposal has been moved by 3/4th of the Councillors. Vide Annexure P-2 annexed with the writ petition, Councillors had prayed to the Collector to initiate proceedings for recalling of the President. However, vide Annexure P-3 annexed with the writ
petition, Councillors informed the Collector that their signatures have been obtained under pressure and they clarified that they have not intended to move the proposal to recall the President. Thus the proposal was not processed further and the proposal to recall was dropped. However, subsequent proposal to recall was signed by 17 Councillors which has been verified by the Collector and when the Collector satisfied himself that three fourth of the Councillors have signed the proposal, he has forwarded the proposal to the State Government. Thus, the proceedings for recall were initiated when the Collector was satisfied that proposal is signed by three fourth of the Councillors after verification.
11. In the case of Prabhakar Narayan Kelkar v. State of M.P. [1999 (2) MPLJ 608], Single Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. This Court while interpreting the scope of Section 24 of the aforesaid Act has held that in case of withdrawal of requisition for holding meeting for considering motion by Councillors who had initiated it before the holding of the actual meeting, the requisitioned ceased to be a requisition on its withdrawal and the Commissioner has power to cancel the meeting which is well within his jurisdiction. This was a case of removal of Deputy Mayor and it is held that the meeting shall be convened by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation on requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of Councillors constituting the Corporation for the time being. This Court has held that on withdrawal of the requisition, requisition ceased to exist.
12. In the case of Artisan Press Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Anr. [(1958) 33 ITR 670], meaning of the words “to initiate” has been considered which means “to originate” or “to take the first step”. However, here the purpose of initiation has been considered under the provisions of Income Tax Act.
13. In the case of Ramesh v. Sheshrao and Ors. [(1998) 9 SCC 113], Apex Court has considered the bar of fresh no-confidence motion within the statutory period. It is held that this bar will not be applicable in a case when where the earlier motion was carried by the requisite majority but was annulled for want of requisite notice for holding special meeting. Here the words “if the motion is not moved or is not carried” have been considered and while interpreting this clause, it is held that until and unless motion is carried, no such fresh motion shall be moved, but where motion has not been carried, fresh motion of no-confidence is maintainable.
14. In the case of Gopal Yadav v. State of M.P. [2002 (4) MPLJ 369]. In that case, three fourth of the total number of elected Councillors have not signed the requisition for recalling the petitioner as President. This Court while considering the scope of Section 47 and the rules framed under Section 29 (6) and Section 355 of the Act, has held that once the election process has
been held and the petitioner was recalled, then he had a remedy of election petition.
15. In the case of Babulal Baiga v. State of M.P. [2002(5) M.P.H.T. 32 = 2002(3) MPLJ 529], this Court considered the provision for motion of no-confidence under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Here the meeting was called but could not be concluded on account of difference of opinion between the Presiding Officer and the members and therefore, fresh notices were issued to consider the motion. It was held that provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam will not be attracted as motion of no-confidence has not failed and it was not discussed.
16. In the case of Ram Charan Ahirwar v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jatara and Ors. [1997 (II) MPJR 357]. This Court has considered the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and motion of no-confidence passed by show of hands. However, this Court finding irregularity in the procedure of motion of no-confidence, quashed the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner on the ground of infraction of rule. Bar of moving fresh no-confidence motion was held to be not applicable in the case.
17. As discussed above, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that earlier proposal for recall was initiated when three fourth elected Councillors have signed the proposal and presented to the Collector. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 is to be read with Sub-section (2) and on reading of both the sub-sections, it is apparent that the proceeding for recall shall be deemed to be initiated when the Collector has satisfied himself after verification that three fourth of the Councillors mentioned in Sub-section (1) have submitted a proposal of recall. Satisfaction and verification by the Collector is mandatory under Sub-section (2). Unless the Collector is satisfied after verification that three fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal, it can not be said that the proceeding for recall has been initiated. Proceeding to recall shall be deemed to be initiated after verification and satisfaction by the Collector as envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act. Thus, in view of the fact that earlier proposal by the Councillors was not forwarded to the State Government as the Collector was not satisfied after verification and on request of the Councillors that their signatures are obtained by coercion and they have not voluntarily moved the proposal for recall, the proceedings were dropped. We hold that the Single Bench has not committed any error in dismissing the petition holding that earlier motion was not initiation of the proceedings.
18. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, Misc. Civil Petition No. 1220/2003 for stay is dismissed.