Ordinance Extending Time To Move 'No-Confidence Motion' Regarding Municipal Council Head's Tenure Is Retrospective: MP High Court Reaffirms

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2024, which extended the period for bringing a no-confidence motion from two years to three years shall apply retrospectively.

In doing so, the court clarified that a motion of No-Confidence may be moved against the Vice President of the Municipal Council by the elected Councillors at a meeting specifically convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) of Section 43A of the M.P. Municipalities Act. It further agreed with the court's reasoning in another matter concerning the retrospective application of the ordinance. 

In the said meeting, if the majority of three – fourth of elected Councillors are present and if the majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councillors' vote in the meeting in favour of No-Confidence Motion, the President / Vice President post shall be deemed to vacant. Therefore, the actual effect of a No-Confidence Motion will have to be seen in a meeting specially convened for that purpose, the court said. 

With respect to the facts of the case, a division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In this matter, before the date on which the meeting was to be convened the period of two years has been changed to three years hence, on the date when the meeting is to be convened such resolution shall not lie against the petitioner...he did not complete three years' period from the date on which he entered into the office.”

The division bench referred to Supreme Court's decision in Rafiquennessa & Another v/s Lal Bahadur Chetri (Since Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Anr (1964) which said that a statutory provision is held to be retrospective either when it is declared so in "express terms", or when the intention to make it retrospective follows from the relevant words and the context in which it occurs. The high court then said that in the present matter, the purpose of changing the period from two years to three years is the intention to protect the elected President.

The present writ appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam against the order passed by a single judge bench allowing the writ petition filed by one of the respondents (in the appeal) and by quashing the notice of No-Confidence Motion dated August 27 moved by the respondents.

After general elections in July 2022, the elected Councillors elected the Respondent No. 4 as the President of the Municipal Council, Rajgarh on August 20. After the expiry of two years from the date of election of the present appellants, who are three in number moved a No-Confidence Motion against respondent no. 4. 

In exercise of the power conferred under Section 43A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 the Collector, District – Rajgarh (Biaora) authorized the Additional Collector to conclude the proceedings of the No-Confidence Motion. Complying the said order, a meeting was scheduled by the Additional Collector.

The elected president challenged this No-Confidence Motion before the single judge bench in a writ petition on the ground that the Governor of the State has passed an ordinance, whereby Section 43A of the M.P. Municipalities Act has been amended to the effect that word 'two-third' is substituted by the word 'three-fourth' and period 'two years' is substituted by 'three years' in Clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 43A. Therefore, no resolution of the motion of No-Confidence can be brought against the President or Vice President within three years from the date of their election, he argued. 

The single judge bench allowed the writ petition relying on a decision of a coordinate single judge bench in Manju Rai v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. It was held that the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2024 has retrospective operation and would apply to all those cases whereby although the No-Confidence Motion might have been moved before the promulgation of the Ordinance, still the meeting to consider the No-Confidence Motion was fixed after the promulgation of the Ordinance. Therefore, no meeting can now be convened as per the amendment. In the present case, the respondent no. 4 was elected on August 12 and as per the Ordinance, the motion could not have been moved before the period of three years from the date of the election. Against this decision the appellants moved before the division bench. 

The counsel for appellants submitted that the single judge bench erred in relying upon judgment in Manju Rai while holding that the Ordinance of 2024 has retrospective operation and according to him it would apply to all those cases, where No-Confidence Motion has been moved, but the meeting is not convened.

It was submitted that the present appellants have moved the No-Confidence Motion against the respondent no. 4 before the date of issuance of the Ordinance. So this motion can be considered immediately after completion of two years from the date of election against the President/Vice President as the law, prevailing at that relevant point of time would apply. 

The counsel for the respondent no. 4 argued that by way of amendment, the period of protection from No-Confidence Motion has been extended from two years to three years, therefore, now no No-Confidence Motion up to three years from the date of election can be passed. 

Meanwhile the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the single judge bench had rightly set aside the No-Confidence Motion relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Manju Rai (supra). The legislature intends to give three years' protection to the elected President or Vice President of local bodies from moving the No-Confidence Motion against them.

The division bench was satisfied with the reasoning given in Manju Rai's case (supra) which was followed by the single judge bench. Dismissing the appeal it said, “We are not inclined to take a different view that the right to move a motion by elected Councillors is only a procedural law and not a vested right which has rightly been held by the Writ Court.Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court”. 

Case Title: SAROJ KATARIYA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 286

WRIT APPEAL No. 2294 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order