ROOP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for our consideration in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the two-thirds majority referred to in Section 175 (1) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act) which is necessary to remove a Chairman or Vice Chairman from his office would mean two-third of the total number of the elected members of the Zila Parishad including the Panchayat Samitis of the district or two-third of the existing members at the time of passing the no confidence motion.

(2.) THE undisputed facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed. Petitioner was elected Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Sangrur in the year 1994. At that time there were a total of 37 seats of the Zila Parishad excluding the ex-officio members. Out of these 25 members were directly elected from the territorial constituencies in the district and the remaining 12 were the Chairmen of the Panchayat Samitis. However, when the Zila Parishad was constituted in the year 1994, it consisted of only 36 members as election to one of the seats had been stayed by this Court in civil writ petition 15124 of 1994 (Tufail Mohammad and Anr. v. State of Punjab ). That petition is still pending and the stay order operative. On 20. 3. 1997 the members of Panchayat Samiti, Sangrur passed no confidence motion against its Chairman Shri Mohinder Singh Namol and, there fore, he ceased to be a member of the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Malerkotla II had been abolished and its Chairman also ceased to be a member of the Zila Parishad. There were thus 34 existing members excluding the ex-officio members of the Zila Parishad in September, 1997. On 4. 9. 1997 22 members of the Zila Parishad moved a requisition for convening a special meeting for removing the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson (in this case we are only concerned with the Chairperson, as the members had no confidence in them. This requisition was delivered to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur who directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner to convene a special meeting as required by Section 175 of the Act. A special meeting was consequently held on 16. 9. 1997 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and it was attended by 23 members. As per the proceedings of that meeting all the 23 members present expressed their no confidence against the petitioner and it was recorded that she had vacated her office in terms of Section 175 (1) of the Act. It is against this resolution that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for moving a no-confidence motion a requisition for special meeting has to be signed by not less than one-fifth of the total number of elected members of the Zila Paris had which has to be delivered to the Deputy Commissioner who on receipt of the same shall within seven days convene a special meeting of the Zila Paris had and authorise an officer not below the rank of Extra Assistant Commissioner to convene such a meeting. After such authorisation the special meeting has to be convened within fifteen days from the date of issue of notice of the meeting. In that meeting if a resolution expressing want of confidence in the Chairman is passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of elected members of the Zila Parishad including the Panchayat Samitis of the district then the Chairman shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. In the present case the special meeting was held on 16. 9. 1997 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and all the 23 members who were present in the meeting expressed their non-confidence in the Chairperson (petitioner ).