SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours shall dispose of both the writ petitions mentioned above, as common questions of law and facts are involved for adjudication in both these cases. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.3439 of 2020.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the General Elections of Municipal Committee, Barara, Distt. Ambala were held on 24.09.2017. Petitioner was elected as Member from Ward No.14 as he got the majority of votes. Respondents No.5 to 17 were also elected as Members from different wards. However, one Member has not been arrayed as party-respondent in the present petition as he has been suspended due to involvement in a criminal case. The first meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee was held on 04.01.2018. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.12.2019 respondent No.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Barara called a special meeting for 03.01.2020. However, on 03.01.2020, the meeting could not be convened and vide letter dated 07.01.2020, it was postponed to 24.01.2020. Thereafter, again it was postponed to 31.01.2020 on some administrative ground. A number of writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 2169 and 1414 of 2020 were filed by different Members with the grievance that neither the copy of the requisition was supplied to each and every Member nor notice of 15 days was given. The present petitioner is also having the same grievance that neither any notice was issued nor any requisition was supplied as copy of the notice was pasted/affixed at the door of his house without annexing the copy of the requisition. During pendency of the petition, CM No.2975 of 2020 was also filed for setting aside the proceedings dated 07.02.2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 'No Confidence Motion' has been passed without following the provisions of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1973") and Haryana Municipal Elections Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 1978"). The meeting was convened with ulterior motive without giving clear notice of 15 days, whereas 15 days prior notice was required to be given in case the meeting was to be adjourned for some date. The affixation of notice on the door of the house of the petitioner does not amount service as per provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned counsel further submits that second meeting can be called after the expiry of period of six months and as such all the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion' are bad in law, illegal and unlawful. In support of her arguments, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in case Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2018 (7) SCC 521 and judgment of this Court rendered in case Smt Budho Devi and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and others 1998 (1) PLJ 393.