KAILASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P -6) whereby 'no confidence motion' has been passed against the petitioner without counting the votes of all the elected members and local Member of Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament in contravention of the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (in short, 'the Act') and law laid down by this Court in Krishan Kumar Singla vs. State of Haryana and others : (1999) 123 PLR 150.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner was elected as Councillor to the Municipal Council, Narwana from Ward No. 7 in the year 2011. The total number of members elected from various wards in the Municipal Council is 21 and two other members i.e. local Member of Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament nominated by the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act. The election for the post of President of the Municipal Council was held on 14.07.2013 and the petitioner was elected as President. At that time, elected members of the Municipal Council and Member of Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament had voted for electing the President by simple majority. An FIR No. 22 dated 28.01.2013 was registered against Smt. Ram Rati, Municipal Councillor, a complaint for removing/suspending her was received and the same was forwarded on 04.11.2014 by the Director Urban Local bodies to the Deputy Commissioner. She was required to be immediately removed and suspended under Sections 14 and 14 -A of the Act, respectively. It is further pleaded that as a counter -blast to the initiation of action for suspension of the Councillor owing allegiance to the ruling party in power, 'no confidence motion' was moved against the petitioner. Accordingly, notice dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure P -4) was issued for holding meeting regarding 'no confidence motion'. The meeting of the Council was held on 21.11.2014 and resolution with respect to 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner was considered and on the basis of votes cast by 15 members, 'no confidence motion' was passed against the petitioner resultantly he was removed from the post of the President vide impugned proceedings dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P -6). In the said 'no confidence motion', local Member of the Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament were not permitted to vote for or against the 'no confidence motion'. However, they were required to be permitted to cast vote on the 'no confidence motion'. Reference has been made to Krishan Kumar Singla (supra) and Raj Pal Chhabra vs. State of Haryana and others : (1998) 120 PLR 1.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.