Compliance with the procedural requirements for convening a no-confidence motion meeting as per Bye-law 27 is essential for the validity of the motion.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner who is elected President of Municipal Council, Samba, is aggrieved of and has called in question notice bearing no. MC/S/2022-23/1173, dated 27.10.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Samba for convening a special meeting of the Municipal Council on 04.11.2022 at 11:00 AM sharp in the Office of Municipal Council, Samba.

2. Impugned notice of convening the special meeting issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Samba, is assailed by the petitioner primarily on two grounds:-

a. That the earlier no confidence motion moved by the majority of councilors failed in the special meeting of the Municipal Council held on 17.10.2022 and, therefore, the second no confidence motion could not have been brought within one year of the dismissal of the earlier no confidence motion.

b. That in compliance to Bye-law 27 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipality (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Bye-Laws, 2021, [“Bye Laws, 2021"] the petitioner in his capacity as President had convened the meeting within a period of seven days which was presided over by the Vice-President of the Council and, therefore, it was not open to the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Samba to issue a fresh notice for convening another meeting for taking up no confidence motion against the petitioner.

3. With a view to address the arguments of Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, made in support of aforesaid grounds of challenge, it is necessary to notice few material facts which are germane to the disposal of the controversy raised in this petition.

4. The petitioner came to be elected as President of Municipal Council, Samba, on 07.01.2019 for 5 year term. While the petitioner was performing his duties as President of the Council, majority of the Councilors moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 11.04.2022 before the Chief Executive Officer, which no-confidence motion was later on withdrawn on 15.04.2022.

5. It seems that after few months, another no-confidence motion was moved by nine Councilors against the petitioner before the petitioner himself, as is mandated by the Rules. The petitioner, who received the no-confidence motion, did not convene a formal meeting by issuing any notice but an informal meeting of about nine Councilors out of total 17 Councilors took place on 19.10.2022 in the Municipal Council, Samba, in which all the Councilors present reposed confidence in the petitioner. The President reduced the minutes of meeting in writing and conveyed the decision to the Competent Authority.

6. The Chief Executive officer, Municipal Council, Samba who received the information about the defeat of the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner took up the matter with the Director to seek instructions in the matter as there was no formal meeting of the Councilors convened and the decision had been taken in an informal meeting that took place in the Office of Municipal Council, Samba, on 19.10.2022. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, without waiting for requisite instructions from the Director and statedly relying upon some opinion of law officer, issued the impugned notice for convening the meeting. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the issue of impugned notification, in the face of the earlier no-confidence motion having been defeated, has filed the instant petition.

7. On being put on notice, the official respondents have caused their appearance through Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG and Respondent No. 5 and 6 have appeared through Mr. M.R. Qureshi. Objections have been filed by all the respondents.

8. It is the plea of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that since as per mandate of Bye-laws 2021, the notice for convening a special meeting to take up no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner was not issued within stipulated period, as such, the Chief Executive Officer was under an obligation to convene such me