PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to proceed further for the removal of respondent No. 4 from the office of President, Municipal Committee, Zira, District Ferozepur in view of "no confidence" motion having been passed against him by two -third members of Municipal Committee, Zira.

(2.) MUNICIPAL Committee, Zira, consists of 17 members out of which thirteen are elected, three are co -opted and 17th member is local M.L.A. Sh. Inderjit Singh as an associate member. Respondent No. 4 was elected as President and he performed his duties as such till 15 -3 -1995 when this Court restrained him from acting as President of Municipal Committee, Zira (in short, the Committee). Petitioners who are members of the Committee submitted requisition on 27 -11 -1995 seeking convening of the meeting of the Committee to discuss the motion of "no confidence" against respondent No. 4. It has been averred in the petition that though the requisition was submitted on 27 -1 -1995 and under Section 25 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short the Act) the President of the Committee was required to call the meeting within fourteen days, yet he issued the agenda -papers on 8 -2 -1995 convening the meeting of the Committee for 25 -2 -1995 at 10.30 a.m. Petitioners having felt that they would not be allowed to attend the meeting, filed a writ petition in this Court for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the rights of the petitioners in attending the meeting and further appointing an observer to attend the meeting of the committee. Before the writ petition could be heard, vide resolution dated 25 -2 -1995 eleven members i.e. petitioners who were present in the meeting decided that Kimti Lal Jain, President (respondent No. 4) has no right to continue as such because he has lost confidence of the House. It finds mention in the proceedings held on that date that the Government be requested to take further action in this regard. Inderjit Singh M.L.A. too was present in the meeting. It has further been averred that after the meeting the Executive Officer came to the meeting hall at 11.05 a.m. and by that time the meeting was already over. The Executive Officer at that time did not make mention of any order having been passed by any Authority but later. on the petitioners came to know that Sh. P. P. S. Kahlon, Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur had passed an order on the application submitted by respondent No. 4 postponing the meeting to 8 -3 -1995. Copy of the order has been annexed as P -9 to the writ petition. The order of the Deputy Commissioner postponing the meeting is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to postpone the meeting of the Committee especially when it had been convened under Section 25 of the Act on a requisition submitted by some members of the Committee. The petitioners have also averred that although the resolution has been passed by 11 members which is more than two -thirds of the total strength of the House, but the respondents are not treating the President under suspension and are not proceeding further for his removal from the office of President of the Committee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that expression "two -third of members of the Committee" as appearing in Section 22 and its proviso has reference only to the total number of elected and co -opted members and not to ex -officio members, the reason being that an ex -officio member is not entitled to vote in a meeting. Counsel thus contended that 11 members out of total strength of 16 having passed the resolution, it would have the effect of removing respondent No. 4. In answer to this submission, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the committee comprises of not only elected and co -opted members but also associate member and all have to be counted to determine the strength of the committee and the resolution would be valid only if it had been passed by two -third of members of the committee. He thus contended that total strength of the committee being 17; the resolution having been passed by 11 members i.e. less than two -third of members of the committee is not valid.