Judgment:
Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner, a scheduled caste woman, was elected as Chairman of Municipality Dausa on August 28, 2000 for a period of five years. Some members of the municipality presented an application for a motion of no confidence against the petitioner to the Additional Collector Dausa while he was holding camp at Lalsot on December 11,2001, who passed a written order directing to hold the meeting on January 2,2002 pursuant to said proposal. A meeting thereafter was held on January 2, 2002 in the presence of the Sub Divisional Officer Dausa (nominee of the District Collector) and no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed. The petitioner in the instant writ petitioner seeks to quash the order dated December 11, 2001 of the Additional Collector Dausa and entire proceedings of the meeting held on January 2, 2002 including the proposal of no- confidence motion and the decision taken.
2. Challenge to the aforesaid orders and proceedings is based on two grounds-
(i) The Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass order dated December 11, 2001 in view of Rule 3(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman and Vice Chairman) Rules 1974 (for short 1974 Rules).
(ii) Certain disqualified members were allowed to participate and vote in the meeting held on January 2, 2002 which was against the directions issued by the High Court in Deo Dutt Sharma v. Collector Ajmer (I).
3. Smt. Kamla Verma who was elected as Chairman Municipality Dausa on Feb. 8,2002 after the petitioner vacated the office of the Chairman was allowed to take part as intervenor in the matter.
4. On a carefully scrutiny of the the material on record following fact situation emerges-
(i) On December 11, 2001 when the Additional Collector Dausa holding camp at Lalsot an application (addressed to District Collector) was presented to him by Indra Kumar Meena (Member of Ward No. 30) and twelve other Ward members for a motion of no-confidence against Smt. Pinky Rajoria Chairman Municipality Dausa (the petitioner). The Additional Collector, Dausa wrote an order on the application itself directing to hold the meeting on January 2, 2002 in pursuance to the no confidence motion.
(ii)The District Collector Dausa on December 21,2001 issued notices of the meeting to be held on January 2, 2002 to the members and nominated H.L. Atal, the Sub Divisional Officer Dausa to remain present on behalf of the District Collector.
(iii) Meeting held on Jan. 2, 2002 was attended by twenty four members and no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner.
(iv) Order of removal was not passed by the State Government even after completion of inquiry in regard to disqualification against some of the members and they were allowed to lake part in the meeting.
5. I have pondered over the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Proviso appended to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (for short the 1959 Act) provides that until a member is removed from office by an order of the State Government, he shall not vacate his office and shall subject to the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) continue to act as such, and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a member and shall as such be entitled to all the rights and be subject Io all the liabilities of a member under the Act. Sub-section (1-A) alongwith the proviso was inserted in Section 63 by Rajasthan Act No. 26 of 1961 in Section 63 of 1959 Act. The case of Deo Dull Sharma v. Collector Ajmer (supra) was decided on April 13, 1960 wherein it was held that a member who incurs the disqualification loses right to vote during the period he suffers from disqualification. Therefore after inserting Sub-section (1-A) in Section 63, the ratio indicated in Deo Dult Sharma's case can not be made applicable and I find no force in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the members against whom the inquiries in regard to disqualifications were completed were not authorised to participate and vote in the meeting. Until a member is removed, he is entitled to exercise all the powers.
7. That takes me to the other ground of challenge that the Additional CollectorDausa had no jurisdiction to pass an order directing to hold meeting to consider themotion of no confidence against the petitioner.
8. Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 297 read with Section 72 of 1959 Act the State Government enacted 1974 Rules. Rule 3 of 1974 Rules reads as under-
3. Procedure etc. - (1) A written notice of intention to make motion of no-confidence in the Chairman or Vice Chairman signed by one third members of the Board together with a copy of the motion which is proposed lo be made shall be sent to the Collector of the District, who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion lo be held at the office of the board on the date and at the time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice.
(2) The Collector shall sent 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 fixed therefor to every member of the Board.
(3) The Collector or his nominee shall preside at such meeting and if within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting Collector or his nominee is not present or is unable for any unavoidable cause lo preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the time to be fixed and notified lo the members.
(4) A meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of the motion of no confidence under these rules shall not for any reason except stated at sub-clause (3) be adjourned.
(5) As soon as the quorum is present, the Collector or his .nominee shall read the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion. No meeting for the consideration of the motion of no confidence shall be held unless the quorum is present. One-third of the whole number of members shall from the quorum.
(6) Such discussion shall not be adjourned and shall automatically terminate on the expiry of four hours from the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier.
(7) On the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of four hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the Board and the Collector or his nominate shall neither speak on the merits thereof nor thereon.
(8) If the motion is not carried by a 2/3 majority of the whole number of members, or if any meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, the motion of no confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been lost.
(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3 number of whole number of members, the motion shall be deemed lo have been passed against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be and such Chairman or Vice Chairman shall forthwith be deemed lo have vacated his office.'
9. Intention of the Legislature can be gathered from a bare look at the above provision. The Legislature intended that the written notice to make motion of no confidence duly signed by one-third members of the Municipal Board shall be sent to the Collector of the District who shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion. The Collector shall send by registered post a notice of such meeting to every member of the Municipal Board. The Legislature vested power to convene a meeting and communication of notice exclusively to the District Collector and this power can not be delegated to the Additional Collector. The District Collector, however, can delegate his power to preside over the meeting to any other person under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 who shall act in the capacity of nominee of The District Collector. For the purposes of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules, the words 'Collector of District' do not mean to include 'Additional Collector of District' and the Additional Collector of District has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Sub-rules (1) & (2) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules. In the case on hand admittedly on December 11,2001 application for a motion of no confidence was presented to the Additional Collector Dausa at Camp Lalsot and the Additional Collector Dausa forthwith passed an order on the application itself directing to convene the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on January 2, 2002. This act of Additional Collector Dausa was without jurisdiction and even though the District Collector Dausa on December 21, 2001 issued registered notices of the meeting to the members of the Municipal Board yet the illegal act of the Additional Collector would not get validated by it. It will only be deemed that the District Collector Dausa on December 31, 2001 passed conjoint order under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 directing to convene the meeting on January 2, 2002 for consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner. That itself is against the mandate of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 as meeting could, not be convened earlier than twenty days. Since the mandatory provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of 1974 Rules have been flouted in the instant case, I have no option but lo hold that the order dated December 11,2001 of the Additional Collector Dausa and the entire proceedings of the meeting convened in prusuance' thereof on January 2, 2002 were illegal.
10. For the reasons aforementioned I allow the writ petition and quash the order dated December 11,2001 (Annexure 1) of the Additional Collector Dausa and the entire proceedings of the meeting held on January 2, 2002 (Annexure-7). I hold that the petitioner Smt. Pinky Rajoriya shall not be deemed to have vacated her office of Chairman Municipality Dausa. As a consequence thereof intervenor Smt. Kamla Verma who was elected as Chairman Municipality Dausa on February 8, 2002 shall have not no authority to continue as such and shall have to vacate the post of Chairman and hand over the charge to the petitioner forthwith. A copy of the order be forwarded to the District Collector Dausa who shall-ensure compliance of the order within three days from the date of its receipt. There will be no order as to costs.