Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 834
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and S.S.Sudhalkar JJ.
Sukhbir Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana And Ors.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4590 of 1996,
Decided On : MAY 17, 1996
The expression "the members of the Committee" used in Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 includes the members nominated by the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL LAW - NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 21 OF THE HARYANA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1973 - WHETHER NOMINATED MEMBERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE EXPRESSION "MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE" - CALCULATION OF ONE-THIRD AND TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY FOR MOVING AND CARRYING NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Sukhbir Singh, was elected as Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, in December 1994. He was elected as Vice President of the Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, on 24.2.1995. On a requisition given by some of the members of the Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, the Deputy Commissioner appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal, as the Presiding Officer for the meeting to be convened for consideration of "No Confidence Motion". The Sub Divisional Office (Civil) issued notices to all the 20 members of the Municipal Committee for the meeting to be held on 7.3.1996 at 3.00 P.M. On the appointed day, 18 out of the 20 members of the Committee attended the meeting. These included 15 elected members and 3 nominated members. Ten members voted in favour of the "no- confidence motion" and 5 voted against it. Three nominated members did not cast their vote. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal, made a declaration at the end of the meeting that the "no-confidence motion" stands passed against the petitioner. He accordingly recorded the proceedings of the meeting held on 7.3.1996. The petitioner has challenged the declaration made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) on the ground that atleast 2/3rd of the members of the Committee are required to support the "no-confidence motion" before it can be treated as carried out and as only 10 members out of a total of 20 supported the motion of non-confidence, the same cannot be deemed to have been legally carried out.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the expression "the members of the Committee" used in Section 21(3) of the Act and the expression the total number of the members of the Committee include the nominated members. The Court further held that a motion expressing no-confidence in the President and Vice-President can be made by one third of the total number of members of the Committee which may include members referred to in Section 9(3). On receipt of notice of no-confidence motion, the Deputy Commissioner has to appoint an officer to preside over the meeting. Notice of such meeting is to be given to all the members, including the members, referred to in Section 9(3). The meeting to be held for consideration of no-confidence motion is to be treated as a special meeting. At such meeting all the members have a right to participated. The motion of no-confidence can be treated as carried if not less than two-thirds members of the Committee vote for if, the whole number of the members of the Committee has to be counted and, there is no reason to exclude the nominated members for the purpose of counting of one-third number and two-thirds number of for the purpose of Rule 72A and Section 21(3).
Issues: 1. Whether the expression "the members of the Committee" used in Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 includes the members nominated by the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act? 2. The effect of amendment made in Section 9(3) by the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 and the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the expression "the members of the Committee" used in Section 21(3) of the Act and the expression the total number of the members of the Committee to include the nominated members. 2. The Court held that the nominated members are not entitled to vote in the election or removal of President or Vice President of Municipal Committee/Municipal Council, but they can participate in the deliberation in the meeting convened for consideration of no-confidence motion.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the declaration made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal, that the "no-confidence motion" stands passed against the petitioner.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. A short but important point which arises for determination in this case is whether the expression "the members of the Committee" used in Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would include the members nominated by the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act. An ancillary question which would need determination relates to the effect of amendment made in Section 9(3) by the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 and the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1995.
2. Before we deal with the above mentioned questions, it would be useful to refer to the facts on which the parties are not in serious dispute. Petitioner, Sukhbir Singh, was elected as Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, in December, 1994. He was elected as Vice President of the Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, on 24.2.1995. On a requisition given by some of the members of the Municipal Committee,, Gharaunda, to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, under Section 21 of the act read with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the Deputy Commissioner appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal, as the Presiding Officer for the meeting to be convened for consideration of "No Confidence Motion". The Sub Divisional Office (Civil) issued notices to all the 20 members of the Municipal Committee for the meeting to be held on 7.3.1996 at 3.00 P.M. On the appointed day, 18 out of the 20 members of the Committee attended the meeting. These included 15 elected members and 3 nominated members. Ten members voted in favour of the "no- confidence motion" and 5 voted against it. Three nominated members did not cast their vote. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal, made a declaration at the end of the meeting that the "no-confidence motion" stands passed against the petitioner. He accordingly recorded the proceedings of the meeting held on 7.3.1996. The petitioner has challenged the declaration made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) on the ground that atleast 2/3rd of the members of the Committee are required to support the "no-confidence motion" before it can be treated as carried out and as only 10 members out of a total of 20 supported the motion of non-confidence, the same cannot be deemed to have been legally carried out.
3. In reply, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have placed reliance on the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995, by which a Proviso has been added to Section 9(3) of the Act. The respondents have pleaded that the nominated members are not entitled to vote in the election or removal of President or Vice President of Municipal Committee/Municipal Council and, therefore, these members cannot be counted for the purpose of determination of the 2/3rd majority for the purpose of passing of "non-confidence motion." The respondents have pleaded that the nominated members do-not have locus standi to participate in the process of election or removal of the President or the Vice President and, therefore, the members belonging to this category have to be excluded while counting the total number of members of the Committee and if that is done, the "no-confidence motion" passed by 10 out of total 15 members, who are eligible to cast their vote, constituted 2/3rd majority and the "no-confidence motion" has rightly been declared to have been passed by the requisite majority.
4. The Act of 1973 has been amended by the Haryana Legislature from time to time in order to bring it in tune with the 74th Constitution amendment. Section 2(6) of the Act defines the Committee to mean a Municipal Committee or Municipal Council constituted or deemed to have been constituted by or under the Act. Section 2(15-a) defines the term Municipality. It means an institution of self-government constituted under Section 2-A, which may be a Municipal Committee or a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation. Section 3 empowers the Gover
