MAHINDRO DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner No.1 is presently serving as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Pundri, District Kaithal, whereas, the petitioner No.2, is presently serving as the Vice Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Pundri District Kaithal. The electoral college of the Panchayat Samiti Pundri, District Kaithal, who respectively elect the supra, also are empowered to subsequently pass a no-confidence motion against them.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners(s) has vehemently challenged Annexure P-5 wherebys the Additional Deputy Commissioner Kaithal, has re-convened a meeting, thus for considering the passing of no-confidence motion against the petitioners(s). To fortify the said submission, he contends that since through the previously made Annexure P-1 rather by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, the apposite meeting became convened on 11/11/2024 at 02:30 pm in the meeting hall of Panchayat Samiti, Pundri, thus for considering the no-confidence motion. Therefore, he has argued that since the said meeting was not convened, therebys an embargo became foisted upon the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, to subsequently issue Annexure P-5, thus for the very same purpose. He supports the said submissions through drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4, which was made subsequent to Annexure P-1, with a speaking therein, that since respectively 8 and 7 members of the Panchayat Samiti, thus subsequently withdrew their earlier requisition to convene, the meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, rather for thereins thus being considered the appositely tabled no-confidence motion against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. Therefore, he submits that therebys there was a strong tangible ground against the passing of Annexure P-5.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is submitted that since as unfolded by Annexure P-4 rather respectively 7 and 8 members, were not inclined to support the no-confidence motion, as may fall for consideration, in the convened meeting, therebys he argues that since in terms of the proviso to Sec. 62 of the Act 1994, thus for the successful passing of a no-confidence motion, the strength which is to be mustered for the successful passing of the no-confidence motion, but is required to be atleast 2/3rd of the members, who are present and voting. In sequel, it is submitted that when post, the issuance of Annexure P-1, thus through Annexure P-4, respectively 7 to 8 members, withdrew their support against the tabling of no-confidence motion against the present petitioners. Therefore, he submits that neccessarily in tandem therewith, the required strength for the requisitioning of the meeting for the no-confidence motion against the petitioners being considered, but suffers an apparent shortfall or is in deficit vis-a-vis the requisite 2/3rd majority. Resultantly the issuance of Annexure P-5 is contended to be vitiated, thus on account of breach being made to the proviso to Sec. 62 of the Act of 1994.