ANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of notice dtd. 17/5/2018 (Annexure P-9) issued under Rule 10(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (for short 'Rules') by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Jind, District Jind, by which a meeting was sought to be convened for considering the Motion of No Confidence, on 24/5/2018 at 1.30 PM.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as Member from Ward No.17 of Block Julana (Panchayat Samiti), Julana in the year 2016. Thereafter, she was elected as Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Julana by securing 25 votes 1 of 11 out of total 26 . The petitioner received a notice dtd. 16/1/2018 issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jind for consideration of "No Confidence Motion" against her. The meeting was convened on 23/1/2018. However, none remain present in the meeting though the petitioner waited there upto 4.30 pm. According to the petitioner since the special meeting had failed there was no occasion for the Additional Deputy Commissioner to issue second notice of meeting dtd. 5/2/2018 for consideration of "No Confidence Motion" on 10/2/2018. The same is illegal in the light of proviso to Sec. 123 (2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act').

(3.) In reply the affidavit has been filed by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Julana and it is stated therein that the meeting dtd. 23/1/2018 could not be held as respondent No.4 was deputed to accompany Superintendent of Police, Jind and Sub-Divisional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Jind to check up the pollution of factory situated in village Deohla and that is why the meeting was postponed until further orders. No meeting was actually held on 23/1/2018 due to the said reason. Consequently, the contention that there was failure to pass motion of no confidence in that meeting is wholly wrong. It is thus stated that letter dtd. 10/2/2018 (Annexure P-7) relied on by the petitioner was wrongly issued that the earlier motion had failed and therefore the second meeting for motion of no confidence cannot be called within one year. That was wrongly issued in misconception. But the position of law cannot change due to the mistake of Additional Deputy Commissioner in issuing 2 of 11 such letter (Annexure P-7). The letter was issued under a bona fide belief and therefore, there was a bonafide error in issuing that letter and the officer has also tendered unconditional apology for the mistake.