DHARAMPAL JINDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being a member of the Municipal Committee, Cheeka was elected as President of the said Municipal Committee. There were 15 elected members of the said Municipal Committee, besides 3 nominated members, one M.P. and one M.L.A., who were also nominated as members of the Municipal Committee. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla convened a meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee for 10.11.1997 at 11.00 a.m. for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner as President of the Municipal Committee. For the said meeting, notices were issued to all the 15 elected members of the Municipal Committee, besides the M.L.A. and M.P., who were also nominated as members of the Municipal Committee, under the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). No notices to the other 3 nominated members were issued for the said meeting. On 10.11.1997, 14 elected members and one nominated member namely Shri Dillu Ram, M.L.A. attended the said meeting. In the said meeting 3 members namely Dharampal Jindal (petitioner), Harmesh Chand and Smt. Bimla Rani refused to cast their votes. Out of remaining 12 members present, 11 members voted in favour of the no confidence motion while I member voted against the no confidence motion. In the result the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Guhla declared the no confidence motion having been passed by 11 votes as against I, as per the copy of the proceedings, Annexure P-1 dated 10.11.1997. The petitioner, by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the said decision of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla declaring the no confidence motion having been passed against the petitioner.

(2.) IN the writ petition the plea taken by the petitioner is that there were in all 20 members of the Municipal Committee and the no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner only by 11 persons and as such it could not be said that on confidence motion was passed by not less than 2/3rd members of the Committee. That being so, it could not be said that the no confidence motion has been validly passed against the petitioner. In the written statements filed by the official respondents as also by the private respondents the plea taken is that the other nominated members had no right to participate in the meeting, as they had no right to cast vote in this regard. It was further pleaded that 11 votes out of 17 total members were polled in favour of the no confidence motion and as such the resolution had been carried out by the 2/3rd majority of the elected members as well as the total members. In 1998(3) PLR 1 : 1998(2) PLJ 202 : 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 608 (P&H)(FB), Raj Pal Chhabra v. State of Haryana relevant provisions of the Act were considered by a Full Bench of this Court and it was held that besides the elected members, the members of the Committee who were nominated under clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, being elected members of a much larger constituency of which the municipality itself forms part, would have a right to vote while considering the no confidence motion in the Committee. The Full Bench was considering the validity of the no confidence motion passed in respect of President of the Municipal Committee, Indri. The said Municipal Committee had 13 elected members and 3 nominated members besides 2 members nominated under Section 9(3)(ii) and (iii) of the Act i.e. M.P. and M.L.A. Thus there were 15 members (13+2) who were entitled to vote while considering the no confidence motion. In the reported case the no confidence motion was carried by 9 members voting for the motion and 4 against the motion. Under these circumstances it was held by the Full Bench that the no confidence motion was not supported by the required majority of not less than 2/3rd members of the Committee and as such the no confidence motion had failed. Resultantly the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee in its special meeting was quashed.

(3.) IN view of the above, it would be clear that the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla dated 10.11.1997 holding that no confidence motion has been passed by 11 votes against the petitioner is to be set aside.