HARI KISHAN ARORA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was the President of the Municipal Committee, Assandh, District Karnal, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the meeting dated 31.1.2008, in which no confidence motion was passed against him by 2/3rd majority of the members of respondent No. 4 - the Municipal Committee, Assandh (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Committee').

(2.) IN the present case, the respondent Committee consists of 17 Members, out of whom 15 are elected members, 1 is Member of Parliament and 1 is Member of Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was elected as President of the respondent Committee in the meeting held on 14.5.2007. Subsequently, a requisition dated 9.1.2008 was given by 12 Members for convening the extra ordinary meeting of the respondent Committee for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. Upon that requisition, Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent No. 2 authorised Sub Divisional Officer, Assandh - respondent No. 3 to convene a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, in accordance with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Rules'. The meeting was duly called for 31.1.2008 and respondent No. 3 issued notice of the said meeting to all the Members of the respondent Committee. On 31.1.2008, the said meeting was attended by 12 Members, 10 elected members, 1 Member of Parliament and 1 Member of Legislative Assembly, and they unanimously passed the no confidence motion against the petitioner. The said resolution passed in that meeting has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in both the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 72-A (1) of the Municipal Rules provides that a motion of no confidence against the President of a committee may be made through a requisition given in writing addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, signed by not less than one third of the total number of the members of the committee. Undisputedly, in this case, the said requisition was signed by 12 Members of the respondent Committee, including one Member of Parliament and one Member of Legislative Assembly of the area. As per Section 9 of the Act, the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, may nominate members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of State, representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly, the municipal area, as members of a municipality. However, as per the proviso, such persons shall not have right to contest for the election of President or Vice President. However, they have not been debarred from participating in the meeting of no confidence motion or exercising right to vote either in favour or against a motion. If the Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of the area can participate in the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion and caste their votes either in favour or against the motion, they cannot be debarred from signing the requisition for convening meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the President or Vice President. Even otherwise, if these two members are excluded, even then the requisition was signed by 10 members, which are more than the required 1/3rd. Therefore, there is no force in this contention.