PADMA SINGLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of notice dtd. 21/9/2018 (Annexure P-6) issued under Rule 10(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (for short 'Rules') by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Jind, District Jind, by which a meeting was sought to be convened for considering the Motion of No Confidence, on 3/10/2018.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as President of Zila Parishad, Jind in March 2016. Pursuant to the requisition that was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, he had issued a notice dtd. 26/8/2018 calling for convening meeting on 4/9/2018 for considering the Motion of No Confidence against the President of Zila Parishad, Jind, i.e. the present petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 4/9/2018, none remained present in the meeting and therefore, though, the petitioner was present upto 12:15 P.M. in the meeting Hall, none appeared and as such, Motion of No Confidence failed. According to the petitioner, at no point of time, there was a quorum and therefore, as per proviso to Sec. 123 (2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act'), the meeting lapsed. Therefore, second notice that was issued, which is impugned in the petition, within a period of one year, is liable to be quashed in view of the proviso to Sec. 123(2) of the Act. It prohibits calling of another meeting for considering Motion of No Confidence within one year between the last failure. It is in this context, the relief has been claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) Upon issuance of notice of motion, the Deputy Commissioner, Jind has filed reply in which he stated that on 4/9/2018, the meeting could not be held because he received an urgent message from Secretariat to attend an urgent meeting in relation to the strike in his area also, though, earlier to the date of meeting, he had made all the preparations for holding meeting for considering the Motion of No Confidence. He was therefore, unable to convene the meeting and had gone to Secretariat for attending the urgent meeting that was called by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department. That is why the meeting dtd. 4/9/2018 could not be held. Thus, the second notice dtd. 27/9/2018 for holding the alleged second meeting dtd. 3/12/2018 for considering the Motion of No Confidence was issued. Hence, this petition. This Court by order dtd. 27/9/2018 made the proposed meeting of 3/10/2018 subject to outcome of the present petition. It is not in dispute that as abundant precaution, the Presiding Officer sealed the result of meeting held on 3/10/2018.