AZMAT ALI KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges resolution No. 548 dated 10.8.2001, Annexure P -IO to the writ petition, passed by Municipal Council, Malerkotla, whereby 22 members supported the proposal for no confidence motion and 4 members opposed it in a meeting held for considering no confidence motion, which are presided over by the petitioner himself, as President.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Municipal Councillor in election held in February, 1998 and was then elected as President of the Municipal Council in a meeting held on 14.4.1998. Municipal Council, respondent No.2 has been constituted under Section 4 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act). Section 22 of the Act provides that a President may be removed from the office inter alia on a resolution passed by 2/3rd members of the Council. Vide letter dated 28.6.2001. Annexure P -3 to the writ petition, 6 members (constituting more than 1/5th of the total number) of the Municipal Council sought to requisition a meeting to consider whether the petitioner had majority in the house. Under Section 25(2) of the Act, a President is obliged to convene a meeting, if the meeting is requisitioned by not less than l/5th of the members arid Section 25(3) of the Act provides that if a meeting is not so called, the members themselves can call a meeting after expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition within 30 days of the making of requisition. The President failed to call a meeting and though the Executive Officer circulated agenda for a special meeting to be held on 27.7.2001 to consider the requisition from 6 Councillors alleging that the President did not have the confidence of the house, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 236/237 of the Act before the Government for setting aside the requisition dated 26.7.2001. Vide order dated 24.7.2001, Annexure P -5, it was directed that no confidence proposal may not be considered in the meeting on 27.7.2001 or on any subsequent date. Contention of the petitioner in revision petition as reflected in the stay order was that on 12.2.2001, no confidence motion had been defeated and 6 members of the Council could not requisition a meeting to consider no confidence motion. The Secretary to the Government vide order dated 2.8.2001 dismissed the revision petition finding that there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no confidence motion had been defeated on 12.2.2001 and therefore, the meeting could not be called and accordingly, it was directed that a meeting held on 10.8.2001 may consider no confidence motion (Annexure P -8). In view of the said order, agenda for the meeting was circulated by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council on 6.8.2001 intimating that the meeting will be held on 10.8.2001 at 3.00 P.M. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 10.8.2001 and a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed on 20.8.2001 for quashing the resolution dated 10.8.2001.

(3.) 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.