Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Kishan Arora vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 September, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 520 (P. & H.)
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 1772 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 11.09.2008
Hari Kishan Arora
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who was the President of the Municipal Committee, Assandh, District Karnal, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the meeting dated 31.1.2008, in which no confidence motion was passed against him by 2/3rd majority of the members of respondent No.4 - the Municipal Committee, Assandh (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Committee'). CWP No. 1772 of 2008 -2-
In the present case, the respondent Committee consists of 17 Members, out of whom 15 are elected members, 1 is Member of Parliament and 1 is Member of Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was elected as President of the respondent Committee in the meeting held on 14.5.2007. Subsequently, a requisition dated 9.1.2008 was given by 12 Members for convening the extra ordinary meeting of the respondent Committee for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. Upon that requisition, Deputy Commissioner, Karnal - respondent No.2 authorised Sub Divisional Officer, Assandh - respondent No.3 to convene a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, in accordance with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the Municipal Rules'. The meeting was duly called for 31.1.2008 and respondent No.3 issued notice of the said meeting to all the Members of the respondent Committee. On 31.1.2008, the said meeting was attended by 12 Members, 10 elected members, 1 Member of Parliament and 1 Member of Legislative Assembly, and they unanimously passed the no confidence motion against the petitioner. The said resolution passed in that meeting has been challenged in this petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Firstly, the requisition given to respondent No.2 for convening the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the petitioner was also signed by the Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of the area, therefore, on such a requisition, respondent No.2 should not CWP No. 1772 of 2008 -3- have convened the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion. He contends that the requisition for convening the said meeting should have been signed only by the elected members. Secondly, counsel for the petitioner submits that no confidence motion should have been passed only by secret ballot, and not by signing the resolution, by majority of the members. In this regard, the procedure prescribed in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for electing the President/Vice President of a Municipal Committee through secret ballots should have been followed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no such requirement under law and the resolution of no confidence motion was validly passed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in both the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 72-A (1) of the Municipal Rules provides that a motion of no confidence against the President of a committee may be made through a requisition given in writing addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, signed by not less than one third of the total number of the members of the committee. Undisputedly, in this case, the said requisition was signed by 12 Members of the respondent Committee, including one Member of Parliament and one Member of Legislative Assembly of the area. As per Section 9 of the Act, the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, may nominate members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of State, representing constituencies which comprise CWP No. 1772 of 2008 -4- wholly or partly, the municipal area, as members of a municipality. However, as per the proviso, such persons shall not have right to contest for the election of President or Vice President. However, they have not been debarred from participating in the meeting of no confidence motion or exercising right to vote either in favour or against a motion. If the Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of the area can participate in the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion and caste their votes either in favour or against the motion, they cannot be debarred from signing the requisition for convening meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the President or Vice President. Even otherwise, if these two members are excluded, even then the requisition was signed by 10 members, which are more than the required 1/3rd. Therefore, there is no force in this contention.
The second contention of counsel for the petitioner that no confidence motion should have been passed by secret ballots, also cannot be accepted. Neither section 21 of the Act nor Rule 72-A of the Municipal Rules prescribe any procedure for passing the no confidence motion by secret ballot. In these provisions, only it is provided that if the motion is carried out with the support of not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the committee, the President or Vice President, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office. The contention of the petitioner is that in this regard, Rule 71 of the Municipal Rules, where the procedure for the election of President or Vice President has been prescribed, should be followed. Rule 71 of the Municipal Rules provides that if the number of proposed candidates for the offices of the President or Vice President is more than one for each office, the voting shall be by ballot. In our view, the said provision cannot be made applicable for passing of no confidence motion. If the no confidence motion against the President is carried by two-thirds of the elected members of the committee, the President shall be deemed to have vacated his house. In the present case, when none of the 12 members of the respondent Committee, who were present in the meeting convened for consideration of no confidence motion, demanded for voting by secret ballot and all the members unanimously supported the no confidence motion. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, there was no need of passing no confidence motion by ballot.
No other contention has been raised by counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 11, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH )
ndj JUDGE
Refer to Reporter