RAJINDERPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election of members of the Municipal Committee Ambala City was held on 31.9.1987. Thirty members were duly elected, including Ch. Rajindrepal Singh and ten others, the present petitioners ; and Shri Kirti Parshad Jain and others (respondents No. 5 to 17). Under bye-law 18 of the Haryana Municipal Business Bye-laws, in the first meeting of the municipal committee they were supposed to elect the members of the sub-committees as required under section 31(f) of the Haryana Municipal Act. Four members of each sub-committee were to be elected. The first meeting was held on November 11, 1987. An objection was raised and the meeting was adjourned to seek clarification from the Government of Haryana regarding interpretation to be put on bye-law 18 relating to election of the sub-committees providing selection to be by ballot and "by single non-transferable vote". Without waiting for the clarification of the Government, the second meeting of the committee was held on 19.11.1987. Again, objection was raised regarding the interpretation to be put on bye-law 18. Having not received satisfactory reply, some of the members of the committee boycotted the meeting, whereas the remaining members elected members of the sub-committees, the details of which are given in para 11 of the writ petition. A copy of the resolution passed in the meeting is Annexure P2. Representations were made to different authorities, including the Chief Minister, Minister for Local Bodies, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Haryana Local Bodies, and Sub Divisional Officer, Ambala City (copy of the same being Annexure P3 dated 24.11.1987). Having received no reply, the petitioners sent a registered notice dated 16.12.1987 (Annexure P4). The petitioners also moved Director, Local Bodies, with a representation (copy Annexure P5 dated 13.1.1988). Since the authorities did not interfere in the matter, civil writ petition being CWP No. 2581 of 1988 was filed in the High Court. The same was dismissed vide copy of the order Annexure P6 dated 4.4.1988, with the following observations :-

(2.) Respondents No. 4 to 17 while contesting the writ petition, took preliminary objections that alternative remedies were available which were not availed of and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, that the present petition was barred by the principle of res-judicata and that the resolution electing members of the sub-committees could not be challenged by way of a writ petition, as remedy of election petition was available. On merits it was alleged that the true interpretation of bye-law 18 was that at the election of the members of the sub-committees, each member could cast votes equal to the number of members of the committee to be elected, and not one vote. It was further averred that since the members were elected for a year, and the period having expired, the writ petition had become infructuous. Different grounds taken in the writ petition were refuted. Annexures R 5/1 and R 5/2 were filed along with the reply, indicating the decision of the State Government on the interpretation of bye-law 18.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it has been argued that since the election of the members of the sub-committee could be challenged by filing a election petition, no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the election. After hearing arguments of both the sides, I find that this contention cannot be accepted. Section 31(f) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, empowers the State Government to provide bye-laws for the appointment of sub-committee. Bye-laws 17 of the Haryana Municipal Business Bye-laws provides for the municipal committee to appoint three sub-committees to assist in its administration, such as (1) Finance Sub-Committee, (2) Public Works & Buildings Sub Committee, (3) Sanitation and Water Supply Sub Committee. Bye-law 18 reads as under :-