SURJIT MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by eight persons who are members of the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar. Out of them petitioner No. 1 Surjit Mehta was the President and petitioner No. 2 Uggar Sain was Senior Vice-President of the Municipal Committee. They challenge in this writ petition notice issued by respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Yamuna Nagar, convening a meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee for April 2, 1992. to consider motion of no-confidence against the President and the Sr. Vice-President of the Committee. The aforesaid notice is Annexure P. 1 to the writ petition.

(2.) EARLIER, the Municipal Committee had passed a resolution, operation of which was stopped by respondent No. 3, whose order was challenged successfully in CWP No. 3177 of 1992. It was immediately after the decision was rendered by the High Court that the steps were taken to dislodge the President and the Sr. Vice-President of the Municipal Committee that the impugned notice was issued Reference was made to different provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. In order to put pressure upon members of the Municipal Committee a case was got registered at the Police Station against Naresh Kumar Sharma, one of the members of the Municipal Committee, on January 30, 1992. He was asked to oppose the President and the Sr. Vice -President. Since he did not oblige the authorities, a false case was registered against him under Sections 353, 332 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Although offences were bailable, his bail bonds were not accepted by the Police. Some application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on March 27, 1992 in which a prayer was made for calling meeting of the members for expressing no-confidence in the President and the Sr. Vice-President of the Municipal Committee. Notice issued by respondent No. 3 did not mention the number of persons who had signed no-confidence motion. It also did not mention the date of the requisition made to the Deputy Commissioner. Notics Annexure P. 1 is dated March 30, 1992 purporting to have been issued under Section 21 (2) of the Act stating therein that the meeting would be held on April 2, 1992 at 4. 00 p. m. It was to be treated as a special meeting and the agenda was no-confidence motion against the President and the Sr. Vice-President. No notice of this meeting was given to the petitioners. Some of the persons alleged to have signed the proceedings of the meeting, however, they were not in a position to sign the same. Some of the persons were out of station and were not physically present in the city of Yamuna Nagar; one person was stated to be away to Nasik. Anything done in pursuance of notice Annexure P. 1 could not be sustained. Notice was issued in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner, as well as the S D. O. (Civil ). could not decide whether such a meeting was to be a special meeting or ordinary one. For special meeting 48 hours notice was required, whereas for ordinary meeting 7 days clear notice was required Primarily the notice was challenged on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that no request for convening the meeting was made to the President; (ii) that the proceedings were initiated by an authority not competent to take notice of the same; and (iii) that there was no provision for treating a meeting where no-confidence motion was considered to be a special meeting. Prayer was made for quashing notice Annexure P. 1 and the proceedings taken in consequence there. On notice of motion having been issued reply was filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. A separate reply was filed by respondent No. 4 Gurmukh Singh, Municipal Commissioner. All these respondents contested the writ petition, inter alia, asserting that a meeting of the members of the Committee was in fact held wherein no-confidence motion was passed against the President and the Sr. Vice-President. A notice was legally issued under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Yamuna Nagar. Sufficient time was given in the notice for holding of the' meeting. The petitioners refused to accept the notice and the same was pasted at their houses. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents submitted alongwith the pleadings.

(3.) AT the outset it may be stated that different provisions in the Haryana Municipal Act provides for the functioning of the Municipal Committee by the elected members. The Municipal Committee is thus constituted to function in a democratic manner i. e. by holding election of its members by the voters of the locality. Those elected members after taking oath were supposed to elect the President, and the Sr. Vice-President of the Municipal Committee who were to implement the decisions taken by the Municipal Committee. It is in this manner that the people were to rule in the Municipal Committee for the benefit of the people. The President and the Sr. Vice-President are to function as leaders of the majority party having their confidence. The moment they lose such confidence, obviously they could not hold the elected posts of the President and the Sr. Vice President The provision exists in the Act to which reference would be made later that posts of the President and the Vice-President shall be deemed to have fallen vacant on passing of no-confidence motion against them. With this background in mind now the stage is set for referring to the different provisions of the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws and the facts of the case. Section 21 of the Act deals with subject of no-confidence motion which reads as under : -. Section 21: