RAJNI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the impugned notice of requisition dtd. 19/3/2021 (Annexure P-4) to bring no confidence motion against the petitioner and quashing of the impugned notice letter dtd. 25/3/2021 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, fixing the date of the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion on 12/4/2021 on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and against the settled provisions of law. Allegations have also been made that this is a case where money is being paid to the councillors for voting against the petitioner.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the no confidence motion which has been signed by nine of the total thirteen members of the municipal council is not in the correct format. Although it is alleged that the requirement is only l/3rd of the total number of members of the committee which obviously is fulfilled, however, he states that the Deputy Commissioner has not verified as to whether the members who are alleged to have signed the said notice have actually signed or not. He asserts that because of non-verification of the said fact the consequent issuance of notice letter dtd. 25/3/2021 (Annexure P-10) fixing 12/4/2021 as the date for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. It has also been asserted that as per proviso to Rule 72-A(l) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 the members have not been informed that the motion could be withdrawn before the meeting, if convened for the said purpose. He thus contends that firstly the impugned notice of requisition for bringing no confidence motion dtd. 19/3/2021 (Annexure P-4) as also the notice letter dtd. 25/3/2021 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Deputy Commissioner to consider the no confidence motion by fixing 12/4/2021 as the date is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Assertion has also been made that the concillors are being paid money for voting against the petitioner.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner but do not find ourselves in agreement with the said contentions as have been raised. As regards the cash for votes allegations, which have been made by the petitioner, they are bald assertions without any further fortification of the said allegations. No details thereof have been given.