The Deputy Commissioner does not have jurisdiction under section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 to prohibit the convening of a meeting of the Municipal Committee by the requisitionists under section 25(3) of the Act.

Pritpal Singh, J.

1. There are twenty-five members of the Municipal Committee, Batala. Eighteen out of those members are the petitioners. Raghubir Chand Puri, respondent No. 2, is the President of the Municipal Committee. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 10, 12, 13 and 17 moved a requisition to respondent No. 2 under section 25 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act) requesting him to convene a special meeting of the Municipal Committee to consider the question of No Confidence Motion against him. A copy of the requisition is (Annexure P.1). This requisition was received by respondent No. 2 on August 24, 1983. This respondent directed on September 6, 1983 for the convening of the meeting on October 17, 1983. According to the petitioners the convening of the meeting, for a date beyond 14 days from the receipt of the requisition by respondent No. 2, violated section 25 of the Act. Their contention is that this statutory period of 14 days expired on September 7, 1983 and since respondent No. 2 fixed October 17, 1983 as the date of the meeting, the requisitionists themselves convened a special meeting on September 16, 1983 at 3.00 p.m. at the Town Hall, Batala. Eighteen out of 25 members attended the meeting and they passed a resolution of No Confidence against respondent No. 2 by a more than 2/3rd majority of the total strength of the Municipal Committee. A copy of the proceedings of this meeting is Annexure P.6. These proceedings were conveyed to the Punjab Government through its Secretary, Department of Local Government, on the following day. A copy of the relevant letter is Annexure P.7. It is averred by the petitioners that they have learnt that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, respondent No. 5, had passed an order prohibiting the holding of the meeting dated September 16, 1983 in exercise of his powers under section 232 of the Act. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to pass this order and it has no effect upon the resolution of No Confidence passed against respondent No. 2 in that meeting. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of section 22 of the Act the No Confidence Motion passed against respondent No. 2 has the effect of his immediate suspension. Since respondent No. 2 is continuing to function in the office of the President and he has not so far been removed from the office by the State of Punjab, respondent No.1, the petitioners have claimed a writ of quo warranto restraining respondent No. 2 from acting as President of the Municipal Committee, Batala, and a writ of mandamus directing the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, to remove respondent No. 2 from the office of the President. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have also been impleaded on the plea that they are related to respondent No. 2 and they form one group which is pressurising the State Administration not to take any action against respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of No Confidence.

2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 contested the writ petition. The Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, respondent No. 5, did not file any written statement. The case of the contesting respondents is that the meeting dated September 16, 1983 in which the aforesaid No Confidence resolution was passed against respondent No. 2, and the Punjab Government was requested to remove him from the office of the President of the Municipal Committee, having been forbidden by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, in exercise of his powers under section 232 of the Act, was illegal and void ab initio and as such the resolution passed in this meeting is ineffective in the eye of law. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 having convened the meeting of October 17, 1983 on the requisition received from the requisitionists, no such meeting could be held on September 16, 1983. Another objection taken by the respondents is that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have forwarded the resolution passed by them on September 16, 1983 to the De