Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Budho Devi And Anr. vs Deputy Commissioner And Ors. on 30 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR239
JUDGMENT N.K. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a petition by Smt. Budho Devi and Dharamvir Jain under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the notice dated 17.4.1997, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, to petitioner No. 2 (Dharamvir Jain), asking him to attend a meeting of the Municipal Committee convened on 2.5.1997 to consider the "no confidence motion". The petitioner have also sought a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents No. 9 and 10 (Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi respectively) from attending the meeting.
2. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Budho Devi was elected as President of the Municipal Committee. On a requisition submitted by certain members of the Municipal Committee, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon authorised S.D.O. (C), Ferozepur Jhirka, to convene a special meeting of the Municipal Committee to consider the "no confidence motion" against petitioner No. 1 Smt. Budho Devi. The petitioner No. 1, thereafter, informed the Deputy Commissioner through application dated 4.4.1997 that the Municipal Councillors, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi (respondents 9 and 10 respectively) stood disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The disqualification was said to have occurred in the case of Niranjan Lal on the birth of his son on 3.9.1996. Since Niranjan Lal had already four children, the birth of the fifth child was said to be a factor for disqualification under Section 13A(l)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act. In the case of Smt. Sarti Devi, it was alleged that she had given birth to a son on 14.10.1995 through she had already three children. The petitioner's aforesaid application seeking disqualification of the two respondents, was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the S.D.O.(C) on 9.4.1997 for further necessary action. No action was, however, taken by the S.D.O. (C). A notice dated 17.4.1997 was issued by the S.D.O.(C) for convening a special meeting of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka, on 2.5.1997 for considering a "no confidence motion" against Smt. Budho Devi. This notice was however, dispatched by registered post to the petitioners and other members of. the Municipal Committee on 19.4.1997. The petitioner received this notice on 21.4.1997. Since the meeting had been fixed for 2.5.1997, the notice is said to be bad inasmuch as 15 days time, as required in the relevant rule, was not given.
3. The petitioners have challenged the convening of the meeting on two grounds:
(i) that the two respondents have no right to sign a requisition for convening a meeting for considering a "non confidence motion", as the two respondents, namely Naranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi, stood disqualified and the requisition submitted by some members of the Committee including the respondents was bad in law, and
(ii) that the notice given by S.D.O.(C) was served on the petitioners on 21.4.1997 for , the meeting fixed for 2.5.1997. Thus, a notice of 15 days was not given as required in Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.
4. Respondents No. 9 and 10 have, in their joint reply, challenged the petitioner's plea regarding disqualification. It has been argued that the respondents, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sard Devi had not been declared disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act. Such disqualification would occur after enquiry in accordance with law and not merely on the petitioners' allegations. Moreover, the requisition was submitted by nine members out of ten members and if the two respondents, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi, were excluded, the requisition would still be valid requisition. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 72-A requires a requisition, for a motion of no-confidence, to be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members of the Municipal Committee. It is also argued that power of removal of the member on account of disqualification vested in the State Government under Section 14 of the Haryana Municipal Act. Unless the State Government makes an order removing a member, the participation of the member cannot be forbidden.
5. The plea raised by the petitioners regarding disqualification of respondents | Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi, is found to have no force, because the State Government has not declared them as removed under Section 14 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Moreover, requisition to a call of meeting was submitted by nine members of the Municipal Committee and even if two members, alleged to have become disqualified, are excluded, the requisition would still hold good inasmuch as it is signed by not less than one-third of the total members.
6. The second contention raised by the petitioners has force, as it would appear from the petitioner' contention that 15 days' notice has not been given. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, reads as under :-
"72-A. No Confidence Motion against President or Vice President- (1) & (2) ...
(3) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Extra Assistant Commissioner, as the Deputy Commissioner may authorise, shall convene a special meeting by giving a notice of not less than fifteen days for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub-rule (1), and shall preside over at such meetings :
Provided that no such meeting for the purpose shall be convened unless a period of six months has elapsed since the date of last meeting convened for this purpose."
7. Since the notice was issued by the S.D.O.(C) on 17.4.1997 and it was despatched on 19.4.1997 for the meeting convened on 2.5.1997, a clear notice of 15 days was definitely not given. The notice is said to have been received by the respondents on 21.4.1997 and if the relevant date is taken to be 21.4.1997 for computation of 15 days, the meeting convened on 2.5.1997 cannot be held to be a meeting after 15 days of the notice. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 72-A requires, in clear terms, to convene a special meeting by giving a notice of not less than 15 days for the consideration of a motion of no-confidence against the President or Vice President. Since the notice issued by the S.D.O.(C) does not fulfill the condition of 15 days, the said notice has to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the notice dated 17.4.1997, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), is quashed. However, the parties shall be at liberty to convene a meeting in accordance with law. No order as to costs.