RAGHUBAR DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy, in substance, orbits around the interpretation of the words ''call a meeting'' as appearing in section 25(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act (Punjab Act 3 of 1911, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The other points are mere fragments of the meteor.

(2.) THE factual aura is not clouded. The petitioner Raghubar Dass is the elected President of the Municipal Committee, Nabha, and has been a Member of the said Committee for the last about twenty years. On December 16, 1981, seven Members of the Municipal Committee sent a requisition to the petitioner, in his capacity as President, for holding a meeting of the Committee. On December 30, 1981 (within fourteen days of the receipt of the requisition) the petitioner called a meeting of the Committee for January 14, 1982 to consider the requisition which was, in fact, a No -Confidence Motion against him. It transpires that the Executive Officer of the Committee in spite of having received communication of the above meeting, instead convened the meeting of the Committee on January 4, 1982. The allegation is that this was done by the requisitionists in connivance with the Executive Officer. It is also alleged that neither any Agenda was circulated for this meeting nor information about the meeting was given to all the Members. In the meeting so held on January 4, 1982, a resolution of No -Confidence against the petitioner was passed. In pursuance to the said resolution, the petitioner received a Show -Cause Notice from the Punjab Government (Copy Annexure P -1). He sent a reply (Copy Annexure P -2). Thereafter vide order (Copy Annexure P -3) the petitioner was removed from the office of the President of the Municipal Committee. By means of the present Writ Petition, the said order is impugned as void, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, on the grounds as stated in the Writ Petition.

(3.) IN the return filed by the Under Secretary to the Government Punjab, Local Government Department, on behalf of the respondents, the allegations contained in the Writ Petition were controverted. The action of the requisitionists in holding a meeting and passing a resolution of No -Confidence against the petitioner was defended. On the question of the limitation for holding a requisitioned meeting, it was contended that the petitioner having received the requisition on December 16, 1981, he should have held the meeting on any date up to December 30, 1981. The action of the petitioner in calling the meeting for January 14, 1982 was stated to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. As such, the holding of the meeting by the requisitionists on January 4, 1982 was said to be legal and within the rights of the requisitionists. Some other matters were also raised in the reply but for the purpose of this Writ Petition, they are not material because as already noticed the question to be decided is as to within what period the President of the Municipal Committee is bound to call a meeting as postulated under section 25(3) of the Act. The point may now be examined.