Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharmpal Jindal vs State Of Haryana on 13 July, 1999
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.
1. The petitioner being a member of the Municipal Committee, Cheeka was elected as President of (he said Municipal Committee. There were 15 elected members of the said Municipal Committee, besides 3 nominated members, one M.P. and one M.L.A., who were also nominated as members of the Municipal Committee. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla convened a meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee for 10.11.1997 at 11.00 a.m. for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner as President of the Municipal Committee. For the said meeting, notices were issued to all the 15 elected members ofthe Municipal Committee, besides the M.L.A. and M.P., who were also nominated as members ofthe Municipal Committee, under the provisions ofthe Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). No notices to the other 3 nominated members were issued for the said meeting. On 10.11.1997, 14 elected members and one nominated member namely Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. attended the said meeting. In the said meeting 3 members namely Dharampal Jindal (petitioner), Har-mesh Chand and Smt. Bimla Rani refused to cast their votes. Out of remaining 12 members present, 11 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion while I member voted against the no confidence motion. In the result the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Guhla declared the no confidence motion having been passed by 11 votes as against I, as per the copy of the proceedings, Annexure P-1 dated 10.11.1997. The petitioner, by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution- of India has challenged the said decision ofthe Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla declaring the no confidence motion having been passed against the petitioner.
2. In the writ petition the plea taken by the petitioner is that there were in all 20 members of the Municipal Committee and the no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner only by 11 persons and as such it could not be said that on confidence motion was passed by not less than 2/3rd members of the Committee. That being so, it could not be said that the no confidence motion has been validly passed against the petitioner. In the written statements filed by the official respondents.as also by the private respondents the plea taken is that the other nominated members had no right to participate in the meeting, as they had no right to cast vole in this regard. It was further pleaded that 11 votes out of 17 total members were polled in favour of the no confidence motion and as such the resolution had been carried out by the 2/3rd majority of the elected members as well as the total members. In 1998(3) PLR 1 : 1998(2) PLJ 202 : 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 60S (P&H)(FB), Raj Pal Chhabra v. State of Haryana relevant provisions of the Act were considered by a Full Bench of this Court and it was held that besides the elected members, the members of the Committee who were nominated under clauses (it) and (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, being elected members of a much larger constituency of which the municipality itself forms part, would have a right to vote while considering the no confidence motion in the Committee. The Full Bench was considering the validity of the no confidence motion passed in respect of President of the Municipal Committee, In-dri. The said Municipal Committee had 13 elected members and 3 nominated members besides 2 members nominated under Section 9(3)(ii) and (iii) of the Act i.e. M.P. and M.L.A. Thus there were 15 members (13+2) who were entitled to vote while considering the no confidence motion. In the reported case the no confidence motion was carried by 9 members voting for the motion and 4 against the motion. Under these circumstances it was held by the Full Bench that the no confidence motion was not supported by the required majority of not less than 2/3rd members of the Committee and as such the no confidence motion had failed. Resultantly the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee in its special meeting was quashed.
3. The present case stands fully covered by the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this court in Raj Pal Chhabra's case (supra). In the present case, as referred to above, there are 15 elected members, besides M.P. and M.L.A. who were nominated under the provisions of Section 9(3)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. In this manner there are 17 members (15+2), who were competent to participate in the meeting for considering the question of no confidence motion against the President. Notices were sent to all the 17 members. Only 15 members attended the said meeting including Sh. Dillu Ram, M.L.A. as per the proceedings of the special meeting recorded by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Guhla dated 10.11.1997. 11 votes were polled in favour of the no confidence motion, 1 vote was polled against the no confidence motion while 3 members did not participate. Under these circumstances, it is to be considered as to whether 11 members out of 17 members could be said to be not less that 2/3rd members and whether the no confidence motion passed by 11 members as against 17 members could be consid-
ered to have been validly passed. 2/3rd of 17 members would come to 11.33. No confidence motion is to be passed by not less than 2/3rd members. If no confidence molion has been passed by 11 members out of the 17 members, it could not be said that it had been passed by not less than 2/3rd members of the Municipal Committee. The fraction in such a case would be taken as a whole and at least 12 members would be required for passing a no confidence motion out of 17 members. This is so because under Section 21(3) of the Act, the no confidence motion is required to be carried with the support of not less than 2/3rd members. As referred to above, 11 members out of 17 could not be said to be not less than 2/3 rd members of the Committee.
4. In view of the above, it would be clear that the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla dated 10.11.1997 holding that no confidence motion has been passed by 11 votes against the petitioner is to be set aside.
5. Before parting with this judgment it may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the writ petition a civil miscellaneous application bearing No. 22971 of 1998, dated 28.9.1998 signed by Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the applicants (respondents No. 4 to 14) was filed in this court for placing on record an affidavit of Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. Affidavit dated 25.9.1998 of Shri Dilu Ram, M.L.A. was filed alongwith this application. In the said affidavit of Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A., it was averred that even though he had received the notice of the meeting to be held on 10.11.1997, yet he did not attend the meeting on 10.11.1997. On the other hand the original proceedings book showed that Shri Dillu Ram was not only present in the said meeting but he had also signed the proceedings of the said meting dated 10.11.1997. Accordingly vide order dated 9.10.1998 it was found that prima facie the affidavit filed by Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. appears to be false and accordingly it was considered appropriate to issue notice to Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for filing a false affidavit. In reply Shri Dillu Ram filed an affidavit dated 17.11.1998 in this Court tendering an unconditional apology. It was alleged that he had learnt a lesson that he should not sign any document without knowing its contents, if it is in Hindi and if the document is in some other language he would not sign without knowing the transcript of the same in Hindi. It was further alleged that in fact Satpal respondent who was a member of the Municipal Committee had obtained the affidavit in question from him by not disclosing true facts alleged in the said affidavit. Accordingly vide order dated 3.2.1999, Satpal, respondent was issued a notice to explain as to under what circumstances he had filed the affidavit of Shri Dillu Ram, MLA especially when Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. in his subsequent affidavit dated 17.11.1998 had stated that he had not filed any such affidavit. In reply Shri Satpal, respondent filed the affidavit dated 12.2.1999 tendering unconditional apology and undertaking to be more careful in future. ft was further alleged that in fact Shri Dillu Ram. M.L.A. had shown his willingness (o give his affidavit against the petitioner and told him (Satpal) that he (Dilu Ram) was ready to give an affidavit in this regard and thereupon Shri Dilhi Ram, M.L.A. gave an affidavit to him (Satpal) duly sworn and attested by Executive Magistrate and asked him (Satpal) to place the same on the record of the present case and accordingly he (Satpal) placed the affidavit of Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. on the record by filing a civil miscellaneous application in this court.
6. After hearing both the sides, we do not want to take any further action in the notices issued to Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. and Shri Satpal, respondent, considering that both of them have tendered unqualified apologies. Accordingly show cause notices issued to them are dropped.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed and the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla dated 10.11.1997, An-nexure P-1 is set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
8. Petition allowed.