SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having been dethroned from the office of President, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur, has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that the proceedings of the meeting of the committee held on May 24, 1993 are vitiated as the Resolution was passed by show of hands and nosecret ballot had taken place. Is it required under the law?

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the case He within a narrow compass. The petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Committee in 1992. On April 5, 1993, he received a requisition for "convening a meeting of the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur for considering the motion of No Confidence against him. " The petitioner convened the meeting for May 24, 1993. In this meeting, the Resolution was duly moved. It is averred that Shri Moti Lal "municipal Commissioner proposed that the members of the Municipal Committee, have been pressurised by Dr. Kewal Krishan, Minister for Local Self Government, Punjab in bringing the No Confidence Motion and that threats are being advanced to get the Municipal Committee dissolved if No confidence Motion against the petitioner is not carried out. It was also alleged that some members have also been bribed. He demanded that voting on the No Confidence Motion should be done through secret ballot as is done at the time of electing the President of Municipal Committee under the Punjab Municipal Election Rules. However, this proposal was not conceded and the No Confidence Motion as moved by Shri Malkiat Singh was declared to have been passed by show of hands by 19 members out of the 27 members of the Municipal committee, Hoshiarpur vide Resolution No. 111 dated May 24, 1993. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the Resolution was sent to the Government for notifying his removal from the office of the President. " In pursuance to the Resolution passed by the Committee, a Show Cause Notice dated August 3, 1993 was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his reply dated August 23, 1993, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-3. Initially, vide Order dated September 24, 1993, the petitioner was not only removed from the office of the President of the Committee but also from its membership. He challenged this order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11896 of 1993. Vide Order dated September 28,1993, a Division Bench of this Court directed the issue of notice of motion.

(3.) THREE separate written statements have been filed. On behalf of the State of Punjab and Mr. N. K. Arora, Principal Secretary, Home Affairs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 4) the written statement has been filed by Mr. Gurbax Singh, Joint Secretary to Government Punjab. Besides certain preliminary objections, it has been inter alia averred that the Resolution was passed by the Committee after following the procedure as laid down in the Act and the Bye-laws. According to the respondents, there is no provision in the Act as well as in the Bye-laws "that a resolution of the Committee is required to be passed by secret ballot. . ,". It has been further averred that a written request duly signed by 18 members of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur was received for calling a meeting to pass no confidence motion against the petitioner. In view of the request having been made in writing, there was no need for carrying out a secret ballot. It has been further averred that the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules are not applicable in this case because for the removal of the President, the provisions contained in Sections 22 and 25 of the Act have to be followed. The normal practice for passing of a Resolution is by show of hands and the same procedure having been followed, no illegality can be said to have been committed. It has been further averred that by an inadvertent mistake, while passing the Order dated September 24, 1993, the petitioner was not only ordered to be removed from the office of the President of the Committee but also from its membership. However, the mistake was later on rectified and the original order was substituted. It has also been averred that the petitioner is politicising the matter out of the sheer frustration. According to the respondents, the impugned orders have been passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause and by following the prescribed procedure. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.