PARKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the elections held on 12.1.1998, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 were elected as Municipal Councillors from various wards of Municipal Council, Gobindgarh (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 3 was elected as President of respondent No. 2 on 14.6.1998. A motion of no- confidence moved against respondent No. 3 in November, 1998 was defeated because requisite number of members did not support it. After about six months, the petitioner submitted requisition dated 6.4.1999 for convening a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the respondent No. 3. Vide his letter dated 16.4.1999, respondent No. 3 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib that in view of the bar contained in bye-law No. 27 of the Bye-Laws framed under Section 31 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') meeting for consideration of no confidence motion cannot be convened before the lapse of 6 months of the rejection of previous no confidence motion. This plea of respondent No. 3 was turned down by the government vide memo No. 7/17/9-4LGIII/4767 dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R.3/1) and he was directed to take action in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. In compliance of the government's direction, respondent No. 3 passed an order on 19.4.1999 for holding the meeting on 3.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. in the office of respondent No. 2. Accordingly, notices were sent to the members informing them about the date, time and place of the meeting.

(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties about the above mentioned factual matrix of the case, but there is substantial controversy between them on the events which took place on 3.5.1999. According to the petitioners, they attended the meeting on 3.5.1999 and passed a resolution expressing no confidence in respondent No. 3, but as he refused to give the proceedings book, they recorded the factum of passing of no confidence motion on a separate sheet and communicated the same to the Executive Officer of respondent No. 2 on the same day. As against this, version of respondent No. 3 is that even before the members of the Municipal Council could take their seats in the Municipal hall for the purpose of meeting, 15 to 20 persons unauthorisedly entered the hall and started raising slogans and pushing the members of the Municipal Council. This compelled the authorities to summon the police. However, as the situation was going out of control and there was danger to the security and safety of the members including women, he postponed the meeting for 6.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. and this was duly recorded in the proceeding book. In support of this assertion, copy of the letter dated 3.5.1999 written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib has been placed on record as Annexure R.3/2.

(3.) IN the light of these facts, of which we have taken cognizance from the pleadings of the parties and the file produced by the learned Deputy Advocate General, it is to be decided whether respondent No. 3 should be deemed to have been suspended under Section 22 of the Act.