HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of resolution No-171 dated 15-9-1994 of Municipal Committee, Guru Har Sahai, vide which no confidence against his Presidentship was passed on the ground that the meeting convened was in gross violation of the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws; lack of adequate notice to the members and on account of casting of vote by the M.L.A. who was only an associate member as per S. 12(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') and thus had no right to cast the vote as the Municipal Committee was constituted before coming into enforcement of amending Act 11 of 1994, with a further direction in the nature of mandamus to allow the petitioner to function as President of the Municipal Committee, Guru Har Sahai, and to hand over to him the proceedings book and all other relevant documents.

(2.) Before examining the various legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to keep in mind the following brief facts. Municipal Committee, Guru Har Sahai, consisted of 11 elected members, three co-opted members and M.L.A. as its associate member. The petitioner had been elected as President and had been performing the duties of the President till the passing of the impugned resolution Annexure P-4. It is the case of the petitioner that eight members of the Municipal Committee, Guru Har Sahai, gave a requisition to the Vice-President Mr. Subhash Chander to call a meeting to pass a no-confidence motion against the President who called the meeting in complete violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and so the proceedings conducted in such a meeting is non est. In addition, it has been stated that the M.L.A. being an associate member of the Municipal Committee had no right to cast a vote. If the vote cast by the associate member is excluded, the resolution passed by the remaining members fall short of 2/3rd requisite majority as per S. 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Besides these factual averments, it has been staled that in the absence of the resident, Vice-President has no right to convene such a meeting and even otherwise adequate notice was not given of the meeting on account of which some of the members could not reach in time to participate in the said meeting.

(3.) The respondents, on the other hand, have tried to justify the requisitioning of the meeting on the ground that eight members of the Municipal Committee presented a requisition dated 9-9-1994 for requisitioning such a meeting and since the President was not in town on 10th, 11/09/1994, Vice President of the Municipal Committee exercising the powers under S. 25 of the Act issued an agenda on 12-9-1994 for summoning a meeting on 15-9-1994 to consider the no-confidence motion against the President. Pursuance to the notice issued by the Vice-President informing about the meeting of the Municipal Committee to be held on 15-9-1994, all the members of the Municipal Committee except the petitioner and four other members received the agenda on 12-9-1994. The petitioner and four other members, however, refused to receive the agenda as per report submitted by the peon. It is thereafter that the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, directed the office to send the agenda to the petitioner as well as four other members, namely, Sarv. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Niranjan Singh, Amrit Lal Vohra and Smt. Amrita through post under postal certificate as well as intimating them of the meeting through the telegrams. Thus, in the present case, more than 48 hours notice was given to the petitioner in respect of the agenda of the meeting to be held on 15-9-1994. At the convened meeting, 10 out of 15 members of the Municipal Committee attended the meeting and passed the resolution removing the petitioner from the office of Presidentship of the Municipal Committee. The resolution having been passed by 2/3rd majority is valid in law. Casting of vote by the Associate Member - MLA - has been justified on the ground that in compliance with the 74th Amendment of the Constitution consequential amendments were effected vide amending Act No. 11 of 1994 in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the earlier bar that such a person though can take part in the proceedings of any meeting of the Municipal Committee or its sub-committee but has no right to vote has been removed. Thus, the MLA rightly participated in the meeting as well and cast his vote. The impugned resolution has been passed after giving due notice to all the members and in complete conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules applicable and so does not call for interference by this Court.