TEJWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Tejwant Singh and six other Municipal Commissioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 to 3 to convene a meeting of the newly elected members of the Municipal Commitee, Amloh for the purpose co-option of Balmikis, women and Backward class members as required under Punjab Municipal Act and for issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 1 from nominating any members from Balmikis, women and Backward classes. The petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 8 were elected Municipal Commissioners from the Municipal Committee, Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib and a notification regarding their election was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 14th September, 1992. Under Sections 12-A 12-B and 12-C of the Punjab Municipal Act, two members from Balmikis, Churas or Bhangies, two women and one member from Backward classes, if not already elected in the election, are to be co-opted by the elected members in a meeting which is to be convened by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Gazetted Officer appointed as convener for the purpose of administering oath to the newly elected members. For that purpose, respondent No. 3 was appointed as a convener for holding meeting who convened the meeting, held on 25th September, 1992 at 3. 00 P. M. in the office of the" Municipal Committee, Amloh. In the said meeting on 25th September, 1992, all the petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 8 were present and they were administered oath as required by law, after administering oath, the convener was to enquire about the fact if any of the members mentioned in Section 12-A, 12-B and 12-C of the Act form amongst Balmikis, women of the Backward classes has already been elected or not and if so how many members from each category were to be co-opted. According to the petitioners as the convenor started making an enquiry to the said facts, the meeting was disturbed with a view to compel respondent No. 3 to cancel the meeting. It is further alleged that Keshwa Nand, respondent No. 5 started raising hue and cry on the pretext that a member from Backward Classes had been elected and that the notice stating that the co-option from Balmikis, women and Backward Classes who to be made, was bad and that the meeting be cancelled; whereupon petitioner No. 1 pointed out that under the law summary enquiry was to be made regarding the fact and meeting about the fact in the notice was of no consequence even if it was so stated therein. Respondents No. 5 to 8 were determined to disturb the meeting and made an attempt to assault the petitioners. It is further alleged that respondents were in minority and were not sure that they would be able to co-opt members of their choice. It is further stated that no serious effort was made by respondent No. 3 to control the meeting. The convenor of the meeting cancelled the meeting and recorded a note in the proceedings that respondents No. 5 to 8 had threatened that they would not allow the meeting to be continued and as such the meeting was cancelled. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 asked the convenor to get his note recorded in the minute book that the meeting was in order and members could be co-opted. All the petitioners had stated that since they were in majority they could co-opt the members. Despite that, the respondent-convenor cancelled the meeting. It is further averred that the act of the convenor was arbitrary motivated and the sole object of the convenor was to deprive the petitioners from co-opting the members of their choice. Respondent No. 3 again called a meeting to be held on 30th September, 1992 at 10. 30 A. M. but the same was cancelled on 29th September, 1992 for the reasons that the requisite notice had not been served upon the members.

(2.) THE allegations of the petitioners are that respondent No. 3 in connivance with respondent No. 4 (an M. L. A) with malafide intention and with motivated designs cancelled the meeting and thus the majority of the members had been deprived of co-opting the required number of members from amongst Balmikis, women and Backward Classes.

(3.) THE plea of the convenor-respondent No. 3 is that the proceedings recorded in the meeting which was held on 25th September, 1992 have been correctly recorded and no motive can be attributed to him. Respondent No. 3 has stated that he had no knowledge of the political back-ground of any of the members elected from the Municipal Committee, Amloh.