PARMILA YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election of Members of Zila Parishad, Rewari was held on 6.7.2010. The result was declared on 13.7.2010 by the Returning Officer, Zila Parishad, Rewari. The petitioner was elected on 2.8.2010 as a President, Zila Parishad by the elected members of the Zila Parishad. She was administered oath and sworn in as President of Zila Parishad, Rewari on 30.8.2010. After about two years in office on 16.9.2011, 12 members of the 16 elected members of the Zila Parishad submitted affidavits to the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari expressing no- confidence in the petitioner requesting that a meeting be convened for considering the no-confidence motion. On receipt of affidavits the Deputy Commissioner called all the members in separately to ascertain their minds and whether they stand by their affidavits. On such satisfaction a notice dated 14.10.2011 was issued fixing 21.10.2011 as the date of meeting to consider the motion. The notice, however, was short of the mandatory period of seven days prescribed under Rule 10 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). Aggrieved by the notice, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 19725 of 2011 challenging the notice. This Court issued notice of motion on the petition. Realizing the mistake committed the learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana made a statement that the impugned notice be treated as withdrawn. On the basis of this statement the petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous by order dated 10.1.2012.

(2.) ON 17.1.2012, a fresh notice was issued for considering the no- confidence motion on the basis of the requisition already received and the Deputy Commissioner fixed 30.1.2012 as the date of meeting to consider the no- confidence motion against the petitioner. The defect of the first notice stood cured and there was compliance of Rule 10 of the Rules with regard to the duration of the notice. Apprehending that she would be ousted, the petitioner approached this Court again on 27.1.2012 by way of mention for urgent listing of the case. On taking up the matter on "fix today" this Court issued notice to the respondents after hearing the caveator-respondents. The State also accepted notice of the petition through its Law Officer in Court. An interim order was passed to the following effect:-

(3.) THE sole controversy involved in the petition revolves around the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Rules and its compliance. Before going into the arguments addressed by the respective counsel it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 10 of the Rules:-