KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the notification dtd. 12/4/2021 (Annexure P.3) issued by respondent No.4 -SDM-cum-Convenor, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda whereby the election for the post of Senior Vice-President was not mentioned. Vide Annexure P.3, notice has been issued by SDM-cum-Convenor, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda with respect to a meeting to be held on 15/4/2021 at 3 PM in the office of Municipal Council, Maur for election of President and Vice President and for oath taking ceremony of members. Vide Annexure P.4, the convener asked the members to propose the name of one person for the election of Senior President from them, and on this, Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur member ward No. 5 and all the present members and Sneh Lata member ward No.9 proposed the name of Sh. Chiman Lal Punia member ward No. 12 and this name was seconded by Kulwinder Singh ward No.2 and no other member's name was proposed by any of the members. Therefore, Sh. Chiman Lal Punia was elected unanimously as Senior Vice President.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to cite any judgment to show that Sec. 20(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act (for short, 'the Act') has been interpreted in the manner when there are two Vice Presidents in the Municipality then the Municipality can elect one as a Senior Vice President. Sec. 20(2) of the Act is very clear, which reads as under:-

(3.) Since the selection was made as per Sec. 20(2) of the Act and Mr. Chiman Lal Punia was elected as Senior Vice President as no other name was proposed for the post of Senior Vice President. No case is made out to interfere. Dismissed.