news details |
|
|
| Municipality Prezs, VPs can’t self-stretch their tenures: HC | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 27: In a Significant judgment, Justice Rahul Bharti of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court holds that terms of President & VP of Municipalities from the date of first meeting.
This judgment has been passed in a petition filed four petitioners who are Presidents of the respective Municipal Committees/Councils in district Poonch and Rajouri are claiming that their respective terms of office are to be reckoned to have started from the dates their election as president came to be notified under section 27 of the Act and they entered the office upon being administered with oath, and, therefore, from that date onwards, the term of five (5) years of the Presidentship of Municipal Committees/Councils are to be counted which cannot be prematurely ended from the end of the respondents.
Justice Rahul Bharti after hearing Sr. Adv Abhinav Sharma for the petitioners whereas Advocate General DC Raina for the UT, observed that all the petitioners reckoned that it is only after having entered their office upon being administered with oath of office, the first meeting convened under their presidentship is the starting date for counting the term of five (5) years for the respective Municipality and, therefore, their term as President is to end, accordingly.
It is by the conjoint reading and understanding of the section 23 with section 27, the petitioners have fallen under a misconception that they became President of the respective Municipal Committee/Council only upon taking oath and entering their office, and, therefore, the first meeting of Municipality which came to be held after their entering upon office as President shall be the starting date of five (5) years for the duration of their respective Municipality to last. This understanding of the petitioners is misconceived and misplaced, Court observed.
Court further said that although the Act provides under sections 28, 29, 30 & 31 for ordinary and special meeting, timing and holding of said two kinds of meeting, quorum for the meeting, and chairmanship of the said meeting, but the word "first meeting" obtaining in section 14 as well as in section 13 in relation to duration of municipality and in term of office term of the members is the one from where the petitioners have drawn their conclusion and conviction that it is only upon the election as President, getting notified under section 27 of the Municipal Act attending with oath taking, that first ordinary meeting of the Municipal Committee which took place was to set start the term of their respective municipality and their term of office simultaneously.
The reason why the legislature came to keep the tenure of the Municipality and the term of its elected and nominated members to run concurrently for a period of five (5) years from its first meeting poses a question as to when that first meeting is to be reckoned to have taken place. Section 14 and section 13 read with rule 7 provides a key to answer the confusion entertained at the end of the petitioners to self-stretch their tenure in the office as President of respective Municipal Committee/Council.
Court further said that Rule 7 of the Bye-Laws 2005 provides the answer and that is when the elected members come forward for their first assembly in a meeting on being convened by the Executive Officer for the purpose of election from amongst themselves of the President and Vice-President of given Municipality which is to be the first meeting of the municipality taking place, as upon election as President the same very meeting from that moment onwards is to get presided over by the elected President notwithstanding the fact that the president elect's notification as envisaged under section 27 of the Act is yet to be gazetted and administration of the oath office to take place thereupon.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that in the present case when the petitioners came to be elected as President of their respective municipal Committee/Council the duration of the respective municipality for five (5) years is to be counted for its termination date and the petitioners cannot out stay the said five (5) years of tenure. Thus, with respect to each municipality in reference in the present case, the date of election of the petitioners as presidents of respective municipalities is to be read and reckoned as first meeting of the municipality and five (5) years term to be counted therefrom so as to coincide with the term of office of the petitioners as president for five (5) years with term of five (5) years their respective municipalities.
It is made clear here that coming into being of S.O. no. 150 of 2021 dated 27.04.2021 has no retrospective effect to determine the tenure of the petitioners and it is by the aforesaid interpretation of the position of law obtaining at the time of election of the petitioners as being Presidents of the respective Municipal Committees/Councils that the adjudication of this writ petition is taking place, the Court ordered. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
