ASIF QURASHI ALIAS PRINCE Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.9.2010 has been challenged.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that 8 members of the Municipal Council, Malerkoptla submitted a requisition to the appellant proposing 'No Confidence Motion' against him. As per section 25(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act ,1911(hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appellant was obligated to call a special meeting. Since no such meeting was called by the appellant, the said 8 members invoked Section 25(3) of the Act and requisitioned the meeting for 10.9.2010. This second notice was served on the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 17.9.2010. Since as per the bylaws the time for issuing notice for an extra ordinary meeting is five days, no notice was issued by the said officer. Aggrieved by that the said 8 persons filed a writ petition. In reply the stand of the appellant was that consequent to the notice of the said 8 petitioners he reached the venue of the meeting on 10.9.2010 but the requisitionists did not turn up. During arguments before the learned Single Judge a broad consensus emerged as per which it was agreed that a fresh meeting would be held. Consequently the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition with a direction to the SSP, Sangrur to make adequate security arrangements to ensure that the said proposed meeting was not disturbed.

(3.) IN our opinion once a consensus was arrived at before the learned Single Judge that a fresh meeting would be called to discuss the issue of no confidence against the appellant, it was not open to the appellant to have opposed the holding of such meeting. Consequently he cannot be heard to urge that the meeting could not be called. Apart from that we must also notice that a somewhat analogous provision exists under the Panchayati Raj Act. IN that context in LPA No. 1324 of 2010 decided on October 12, 2010 we have held as follows:-