PARMILA YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 16.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.1632 of 2012) filed by the appellant challenging the proceedings of no-confidence motion passed against her by two third members of the Zila Parishad resulting in her removal from the office of President of the Zila Parishad, has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the election of the Members of the Zila Parishad, Rewari was held on 6.7.2010. The appellant and other 15 Members were duly elected as Members of the Zila Parishad. Later on, the appellant was also elected as President of the Zila Parishad on 2.8.2010 in the first meeting of the newly elected Members of the Zila Parishad under Section 121 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). She was administered oath and sworn in as President of the Zila Parishad, Rewari on 30.8.2010.

(3.) After about one year in office, on 16.9.2011, 12 elected members of the Zila Parishad submitted a requisition in the shape of affidavit to the Deputy Commissioner (Prescribed Authority) expressing no confidence in the appellant and for convening the meeting of the Zila Parishad for considering no-confidence motion against the appellant. On the said requisition, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notice dated 14.10.2011 for convening the meeting of the Zila Parishad on 21.10.2011 for considering the no-confidence motion against the appellant. The appellant challenged the said notice by filing CWP No.19725 of 2011 on the ground that the notice for convening the meeting for considering no confidence motion was not proper as seven days clear notice was not given as required by Rule 10 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Realizing the illegality committed while issuing the notice, the Deputy Commissioner through Additional Advocate General, Haryana had made a statement that the said notice be treated to have been withdrawn. Consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 10.1.2012.