GANGA PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of Letters Patent to challenge judgment dated 24.7.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.4368 of 2012 allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 and setting aside resolution dated 17.02. 2012 adopting motion of no confidence against Naresh Kumar (respondent No.3 herein).

(2.) The factual background of the case is that in the year 2010, respondent Naresh Kumar was elected as Vice Chairman of the Block Samiti, Jind, District Jind (hereinafter referred to as the 'Samiti'). Some members of the Samiti were averse to his election as Vice Chairman. On the request of 23 elected members of the Samiti respondent No.2, vide notice dated 8.2.2012, convened a meeting of the Samiti for considering 'Motion of No Confidence' against Naresh Kumar the petitioner in CWP and respondent No.3, herein, for 17.2.2012. On 17.2.2012 out of total 30 elected members, only 22 members came present in the meeting. According to the impugned resolution 20 members voted in favour, and one member voted against, the motion, while one vote was cancelled and the 'Motion of No Confidence' was passed against respondent Naresh Kumar. According to respondent Naresh Kumar motion of 'No Confidence' against him was carried out in spite of the fact that one member had marked the arrow mark stamp on ballot paper in such a manner that the stamp spilled in both the columns, one supporting the motion and the other oppsing it. This vote, according to respondent Naresh Kumar, was counted in favour of the motion whereas it ought to have been counted against it. This was done in violation of Rule 65 (1) (b) (g) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules 1994 (for short the 'Rules') and Section 62 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the 'Act'). Even the Election Officer, vide letter dated 17.2.2012, admitted that in one of the votes, stamp was affixed in the middle of ballot spilling in both the columns for conveying the choice to support and oppose the motion. As per Section 62 of the Act, for carrying the 'No Confidence' motion, it was to be supported by 2/3rd of the elected members and if the aforesaid ballot was rejected, the motion would have fallen.

(3.) To challenge the outcome of the meeting i.e. passing of 'No Confidence Motion', said Naresh Kumar invoked the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by filing CWP No.4368 of 2012.