TARUN BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to 'no confidence motion' moved against the petitioner by the Municipal Councillors of Municipal Council, Panchkula. Undisputedly, the petitioner was duly elected as President of the Municipal Council, Panchkula. As per averments made in the petition, the Municipal Council, Panchkula consists of 33 members. A no- confidence motion was moved against the petitioner. A meeting was held on 19.10.2005 which was presided over by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula for consideration of no-confidence motion and which, according to the petitioner, was attended by 17 councillors. Out of them, 13 councillors who were also amongst those moving the noconfidence motion, expressed their desire in writing to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to withdraw the no-confidence motion.

(2.) Accordingly the minutes of the meeting, a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure P-1 were reduced into writing by the Presiding Officer. On receipt of representations from certain councillors regarding annulment of proceedings recorded in the meeting dated 19.10.2005, the Director, Urban Development Haryana, Chandigarh, (respondent No.2) however, in exercise of his powers under Section 252(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 30.12.2005 (copy Annexure P-2) ordered as under:

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that with a view to succeed in their evil designs, the councillors who had failed earlier, submitted a fresh no-confidence motion before the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula on 25.1.2006 and acting thereon, an intimation (Annexure P-3) dated 25.1.2006 was sent to the petitioner and other councillors conveying that a meeting in that regard would be convened on 15.2.2006. However, according to the petitioner, no copy of the requisition was sent to him. Faced with these circumstances, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2006 challenging the orders Annexure P-2 and P-3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents held the meeting on the scheduled date i.e. on 15.2.2006 whereby as per their claim, the no-confidence motion had been passed against the petitioner.