TAPINDER SINGH Vs. M.C.PAONTA SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and gone through the record. The present writ petition has been filed by Shri Tapinder Singh, presently holding the office of Vice President, Municipal Council Paonta Sahib which was 11 elected members. Section 25 of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 says that no confidence motion against the President and Vice -President may be moved in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Rules. Rules have been framed, for making of no confidence motion vide Annexure: P -1. Rule 8 -A of the said Rules, called H.P. Municipal (Reservation and Election to the office of the President and Vice -President Rules, 1995 which pertains no confidence motion against the President and Vice -President is reproduced below: "(1) A motion of no confidence against the President -vice -President of Advocate(s): municipality may be made though a requisition given in writing addressed to the Deputy Commissioner signed by not less than majority of its total elected Members. Provided that the Members who have made such a motion may withdraw the same before the meeting is convened for the purpose. (2) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized by the Deputy Commissioner, shall circulate to each Member a copy of the requisition for the use of the members. (3) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized by the Deputy Commissioner shall convene a special meeting by giving a notice of not less than fifteen days for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub -rule (1) and shall preside over at such meeting. (4) If the no confidence motion is carried out with the support of majority of elected members present and voting at such special meeting, the quorum of which is not less than one half of its local elected members, the President or Vice -President as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office.1"

(2.) Seven elected members of the Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib submitted a no confidence motion against the writ petitioner through a requisition given in writing to the Deputy Commissioner as per sub -rule 8 -A. The Deputy Commissioner wrote to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib is convene a meeting of the Municipal Councilors within fifteen days as per the requirement of sub rule (3) of Rule 8 -A. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) issued notice to the elected Municipal Councilors on 8th August, 2005. The notices were personally delivered to the present writ petitioner and one majority of other elected members, on 11th August, 2005 or thereafter. As per those notices, the meeting was to held on 24th August, 2005 at 11 A.M. The Writ petition was challenged the notice on two grounds, namely (a) the Deputy Commissioner has not authorized the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) to convene the meeting as per requirement of law and (b) fifteen days clear notice has not been given to other elected members. According to him, the notices were delivered on 11th August, 2005 or thereafter, while the meeting was scheduled, as per the contents of that notice, to be held on 24th August, 2005.

(3.) The writ petitioner has impleaded the Municipal Council, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) as respondents in this writ petition. Those seven elected Municipal Councilors, who addressed the motion of no confidence to the Deputy Commissioner, have filed an application, being CMP No. 1882 of 2005, imleadment as party to the present writ petition (as respondents) because according to them they are going to be effected by the decision of the case. After hearing the learned counsel representing these seven elected members of the Council and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, we feel that no prejudice will be caused to the writ petition, if the application is allowed and these seven members are ordered to be impleaded as respondents to the present writ petition. So, we allow the application. Amended memo of parties filed with the said application is ordered to be taken on record. Necessary corrections in the cause title be carried out in red ink. The said respondents have already submitted their reply to the main writ petition along with the application. That too is ordered to be -taken on record. Other respondents have already filed the replies which are on record.