JIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Primarily this petition relates to the claim of the petitioners for issue of a direction to respondent No. 1 to suspend respondent No. 2 from the office of the President, Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul, and further to remove him from that office, but a prayer has also been made for declaring Sec. 12(3)(ii) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as ultra vires to the Constitution in so far as it gives a right of vote to the member of the legislative Assembly.

(2.) Election to the Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul, was held in September, 1992, in which 15 members were elected to the said Municipal Committee. Three members, including two ladies and one person belonging to the Schedule Castes, were co -opted in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, 'the Act'). A requisition was made by petitioner Nos. 1, 5 to 7, 11 and 12 for calling a meeting to consider a motion of no -confidence against the President of Municipal Committee (respondent No. 2). A telegram was also sent for requisitioning the meeting. The requisition was received in the office of the Municipal Committee and the Executive Officer made an endorsement on 14.1.1994 itself that the requisition be brought to the notice of the President. Respondent No. 2 called a meeting to be held on 24.2.1994 at 10.0 A.M. Agenda for the meeting was issued vide order dated 27.1.1994 of the Executive Officer but in the notice purpose of the meeting was not mentioned. The requisitionists felt that respondent No. 2 was deliberately not calling the meeting within 30 days of the receipt of the requisition and, therefore, they convened a separate meeting to be held on 8.2.1994 to consider the motion of no -confidence against respondent No. 2. At the same time, they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15S83 of 1994 and challenged the action of respondent No. 2 in convening the meeting for 24.2.1994. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply to that writ petition and pleaded that the requisition made by the petitioners was placed before him on 27.1.1994 only and, therefore, he had rightly called meeting on 24.2.1994, i.e. within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the requisition. The State Government did not file reply to the writ petition. At the instance of the State, hearing of the writ petition was adjourned but at the same time holding of the meeting on 24.2.1994 was stayed.

(3.) In the meeting held on 8.2.1994 by the requisitionists, a resolution is said to have been passed by 12 members for removing the President of the Municipal Committee. Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda was informed about the resolution passed in the meeting of 8.2.1994. Similar intimation was sent to the Executive Officer. However, neither of these authorities took any action to give effect the resolution passed on 8.2.1994. Therefore, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2713 of 1994. This petition was disposed of by a Division Bench on 2.5.1994 after hearing both the sides. The Division Bench directed the Sub - Divisional Officer (C), Rampura Phul district Bhatinda," to call a meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee to consider the agenda of non -confidence motion. The said officer was directed to give seven days' notice. The Court also directed that till disposal of the agenda in the meeting no action would be taken against the existing members to disentitle them from voting. In the meeting which was convened for 14.5.1994, 16 members of the committee turned up. However, the Sub -Divisional Officer (C) postponed the meeting on the ground that there was a chaos in the meeting. The resolution containing no -confidence motion against respondent No. 2 was not put to voting. This led to the filing of contempt petition against the Sub - Divisional Officer (C). Simultaneously the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Application No. 5275 of 1994, in Civil Writ Petition No. 2713 of 1994. The petitioners prayed that a local commissioner be appointed to hold meeting in accordance with the order of the Court dated 2.5.1994. After hearing both the parties, the Court passed order dated 2.6.1994 whereby it appointed Shri Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, as an observer 'for the meeting to be held on 6.6.1994. That meeting was in fact held on the appointed date. Nineteen persons, including Shri Harbans Singh Sidhu, member of the Legislative Assembly and Minister for Animal Husbandry, attended the meeting. In his report submitted to the Court, the Sub. -Divisional Officer (C) mentioned that 12 members voted in favour of the motion and seven against it. These 7 included Shri Harbans Singh Sidhu. On the basis of this voting, the Sub - Divisional Officer (C) declared that the motion of no -confidence had not been carried through. Shri Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, submitted a separate report to the Court in regard to the proceedings held on 6.6.1994. The Court considered both the reports and dispose of the Civil Misc. Application filed by the petitioners with an observation that if there was any grievance against the proceedings of the meeting held on 6.6.1994, fresh proceeding can be taken by the aggrieved party.