STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT Vs. RAMESH CHANDER SEHGAL, EX PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONDENT, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th November, 1992 by which C. W. P. No. 8377 of 1992 was allowed and respondent Ramesh Chander Sehgal was ousted from the office of President Municipal Committee, Rohtak, by a no confidence motion by a majority of 24 members out of 36.

(2.) In nutshell, the factual position is that 24 members of the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, submitted a memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, for convening a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the President, Shri Sehgal The requisition was challenged in this Court by the President, Shri Sehgal, in C. W. P. No. 6642 of 1992. During the course of hearing of this petition, he, however, agreed to call a meeting for 8th June, 1992, in the Municipal Hall, Rohtak, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. K. Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak. Accordingly, the meeting was convened and no confidence motion against the petitioner was carried out by the majority of 24 members out of 36. As a result thereof, the President, Shri Sehgal, had to vacate the office and thereafter he filed a separate writ petition-C. W. P. No 8377 of 1992 challenging the resolution of passing the no-confidence motion against him.

(3.) The solitary grievance made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was that in view of the political climate of the State, 24 Municipal Commissioners, out of the strength of 36, had prearranged and pre-planned to oust the President by carrying out toe vote of no confidence against him, and it was in pursuance of that pre arrangement that the voting had taken place to achieve their object. In this background, the grievance has been projected in the term of legal contention by pleading that, according to rules 49, 52 and 59 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, while marking the ballot papers for the purpose of voting, secrecy of voting was not maintained, inasmuch as the mark on the ballot papers was not with the instrument supplied for the purpose, but by the voters using their own pen On this basis, the arguments proceed to contend that the Presiding Officer should have rejected all the 24 ballot papers and as a consequence the President. Shri Sehgal, should have been allowed to hold the office of the President, Municipal committee, even if 24 voters out of 36 had voted against him.