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 filing a censure motion from two years to three years, will apply retrospectively.

In so doing, the court clarified that a no-confidence motion can be moved against the Deputy Chairman of the Municipal Council by the elected councilors at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) of section 43A of the MP. Municipalities Law. Next, he agreed with the court’s reasoning in another matter regarding the retroactive application of the ordinance.

In the said meeting, if the majority of three-fourths of the elected councilors are present and if the majority is greater than half of the total number of votes of the councilors in the meeting in favor of the Motion of No Confidence, the President/Vice President position will be considered vacant. Therefore, the actual effect of a No-Confidence Motion will have to be seen in a meeting specially convened for the purpose, the court said.

On the facts of the case, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Russia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi noticed, “In this matter, prior to the date on which the hearing was to be convened, the two-year period was changed to three years, on the date on which the hearing was to be convened, such judgment shall not be against the petitioner… not to completed a period of three years from the date on which he entered office.”

The Division Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raficannessa & Another v/s Lal Bahadur Chetri (Deceased) through legal representatives and Anr (1964) which held that a statutory provision is deemed retroactive either when it is so declared in “express terms” or when the intention to make it retroactive is apparent from the relevant words and the context in which it appears. The high court then said that in the present matter the purpose of changing the period from two years to three years is to protect the president-elect.

The present appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam against the order passed by the Single Tribunal allowing the writ petition filed by one of the respondents (appeal) and quashing the opinion of Motion of censure of August 27 proposed by the respondents.

After the general elections in July 2022, the elected councilors elected the defendant no. 4 as Chairman of Municipal Council, Rajgarh on 20th August. After the expiration of two years from the date of election, the present plaintiffs, who are three in number, filed a Motion of Censure 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 with the said order, a meeting was scheduled by the Additional Collector.

The president-elect challenged this no-confidence motion before the single tribunal in a writ petition on the ground that the state governor had passed an ordinance, whereby section 43A of the MP Municipalities Act was amended to the effect that the word “two -third” the word “three-four” shall be substituted and the period “two years” shall be substituted for “three years” in clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of the section 43A. Therefore, no resolution of no-confidence motion can be brought against the President or the Vice-President within three years from the date of their election, he argued.

The single courtroom admitted the request based on a decision of a single commission coordinated by judges in Manju Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. It was held that the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2024 has retrospective operation and would apply to all those cases where, although the No-Confidence Motion might have been filed before the promulgation of the Ordinance, yet the sitting to consider -The motion of confidence was established after the promulgation of the Ordinance. Therefore, no meeting can be called now as per the amendment. In this case, the respondent no. 4 was elected on August 12 and according to the Ordinance, the motion could not be submitted before the three-year deadline from the date of the elections. Against this decision the appellants filed before the division bench.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the single judge bench erred in the judgment of Manju Rai maintaining at the same time that the Ordinance of 2024 has retroactive operation and, according to him, would apply in all those cases, in which a Motion of Censure has been filed, but the meeting is not convened.

It was argued that the current appellants submitted the Motion of Censure against respondent no. 4 before the date of issuance of the Ordinance. Therefore, this motion can be considered immediately after the completion of two years from the date of election against the President/Vice President as the law, prevailing at that relevant time would apply.

Defendant of respondent no. 4 held that by the amendment the period of protection against No-Confidence Motion has been extended from two years to three years, hence now no No-Confidence Motion can be passed till three years from the date of election.

Meanwhile, the Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the State submitted that the single judge bench had rightly quashed the Motion for Censure on the basis of the judgment in Manju Rai (supra). The Legislature intends to give a three-year protection to the President or Vice-President-elect of local bodies against Motion of No Confidence being filed against them.

The Division Bench was satisfied with the reasoning given in Manju Rai (supra) which was followed by the single judge bench. Rejecting the appeal, it was said: “We are not inclined to hold differently that the right to file a motion by elected councilors is merely a procedural law and not a vested right which has been rightly held by the Court by title.Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court vide“.

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

WRITTEN APPEAL No. 2294 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order