The District Magistrate had no power to postpone the meeting of the Municipal Committee under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A.L.BAHRI, J.

1. Kala Ram petitioner was President of Municipal Committee, Kotkapura. A requisition was submitted to him for holding a meeting of members of the Municipal Committee to take up the agenda of No-Confidence Motion against him. On 23/04/1994, he called the meeting of members of the Municipal Committee, to be held on 24/05/1994. On Ma 23/05/1994, the District Magistrate, purporting to act under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered prohibition of the meeting. Such order seems to have been served upon the petitioner and other members of the Municipal Committee. Some of the members of the Municipal Committee filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Faridkot, and made an unsuccessful attempt to secure interim-order, staying operation of the order of the District Magistrate. 15 members out of 20 members of the Municipal Committee held a meeting and passed No-Confidence Motior against the petitioner. In the meantime a writ petition was filed in this Court by the present respondent Nos. 4 to 15 (CWP No. 7235 of 1994) for squashing order of the District Magistrate. At the motion-hearing, order to the following effect was passed :-

"In view of the facts stated above, respondent No. 4 is restrained from acting as president of the Municipal Committee as he would be deemed to be under suspension in view of Sec. 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Dasti on payment. Sd/- S. L. Bahri, Sd/- Ashok Bhan,"

Judges. 2-6-1994.

2 The State Government in the circumstances as stated above and making reference to the order of the High Court, passed the impugned order for removal of the President of the Municipal Committee. Copy of the Order is Annexure P/ 3, which is challenged in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

3. The earlier writ petition filed was dismissed as infractuous in view of the order of removal passed and he prima-facie observations made in the order passed at the motion-hearing cannot be treated as a final order passed.

4. The fact that meeting of members of the Municipal Committe, was held on 24/05/1994, wherein No-Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner, is not denied in the present writ petition. That being the position, the only question for consideration is as to whether the meeting aforesaid was legally held (so) that order passed therein could be given effect. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that when the District Magistrate had passed an order under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Postponing the meeting, the petitioner and some of the members did not go to the Municipal-hall to attend the meeting taking that the meeting stood legally postponed and the No-Confidence Motion passed in such a meeting cannot be held to be legal. This contention is devoid of merit. Reading of Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that no nower is given to the District Magistrate to postpone any meeting to be held within the Municipal premises, i.e. the Municipal-Hall. Reference to the order passed under Sec. 144 indicates that there was some dispute among the truck-operators that apprehension of breach of piece was there to take recourse to Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, under the aforesaid provision some order could be passed postponing assembly of some persons in the public places. Otherwise the District Magistrate had no power under the aforesaid provision or under any provision of the Municipal Act to postpone the meeting of members of the Municipal Committee. Since 15 members of the Municipal Committee attended the meeting in defiance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, it would be entirely different whether any action against them on that account can be taken, but it cannot be said that they illegally held the meeting or that they could not pass the No - Confidence Motion against the petitioner in such a meeting.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner had been present in th