Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 958
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary and N.K.Agrawal JJ.
Budho Devi
Versus
Deputy Commissioner
Civil Writ Petition No. 5653 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 30, 1997
The court emphasized the importance of following the statutory provisions and rules when convening a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the President or Vice President of a Municipal Committee. The notice for such a meeting must be issued in accordance with the prescribed time frame, and the disqualification of Municipal Councillors must be established through proper legal procedures.
Headnote:
HARYANA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1973 - SECTION 13-A, 14 - RULE 72-A(1), 72-A(3) - DISQUALIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILLORS - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION - NOTICE FOR MEETING - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, President and a member of the Municipal Committee, challenged the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) for convening a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the President. They argued that two Municipal Councillors, who signed the requisition for the meeting, were disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and that the notice was not served in accordance with Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plea of disqualification of the two Municipal Councillors lacked merit as the State Government had not declared them as removed under Section 14 of the Haryana Municipal Act. The court also held that the notice issued for the meeting did not fulfill the condition of 15 days' notice as required under Rule 72-A(3) and was therefore invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the two Municipal Councillors were disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. 2. Whether the notice issued for the meeting was valid in accordance with Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Disqualification of Municipal Councillors: The court held that the disqualification of the two Municipal Councillors could not be established merely on the petitioners' allegations. Such disqualification would occur only after an enquiry in accordance with law and not merely on the petitioners' allegations. Moreover, the requisition for the meeting was submitted by nine members out of ten members, and even if the two allegedly disqualified members were excluded, the requisition would still be valid as it was signed by not less than one-third of the total members. 2. Validity of the Notice: The court held that the notice issued for the meeting was invalid as it did not fulfill the condition of 15 days' notice as required under Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978. The notice was issued on 17th April 1997 and dispatched on 19th April 1997 for the meeting convened on 2nd May 1997, which did not provide a clear notice of 15 days.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice dated 17th April 1997 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). However, the parties were at liberty to convene a meeting in accordance with the law.
N.K.Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a petition by Smt. Budho Devi and Dharamvir Jain under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the notice dated 17.4.1997, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, to petitioner No. 2 (Dharamvir Jain), asking him to attend a meeting of the Municipal Committee convened on 2.5.1997 to consider the "no confidence motion". The petitioner have also sought a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents No. 9 and 10 (Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi respectively) from attending the meeting.
2. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Budho Devi was elected as President of the Municipal Committee. On a requisition submitted by certain members of the Municipal Committee, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon authorised S.D.O. (C), Ferozepur Jhirka, to convene a special meeting of the Municipal Committee to consider the "no confidence motion" against petitioner No. 1 Smt. Budho Devi. The petitioner No. 1, thereafter, informed the Deputy Commissioner through application dated 4.4.1997 that the Municipal Councillors, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi (respondents 9 and 10 respectively) stood disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 . The disqualification was said to have occurred in the case of Niranjan Lal on the birth of his son on 3.9.1996. Since Niranjan Lal had already four children, the birth of the fifth child was said to be a factor for disqualification under Section 13A(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act. In the case of Smt. Sarti Devi, it was alleged that she had given birth to a son on 14.10.1995 through she had already three children. The petitioners aforesaid application seeking disqualification of the two respondents, was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the S.D.O.(C) on 9.4.1997 for further necessary action. No action was, however, taken by the S.D.O. (C). A notice dated 17.4.1997 was issued by the S.D.O.(C) for convening a special meeting of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka, on 2.5.1997 for considering a "no confidence motion" against Smt. Budho Devi. This notice was however, dispatched by registered post to the petitioners and other members of. the Municipal Committee on 19.4.1997. The petitioner received this notice on 21.4.1997. Since the meeting had been fixed for 2.5.1997, the notice is said to be bad inasmuch as 15 days time, as required in the relevant rule, was not given.
3. The petitioners have challenged the convening of the meeting on two grounds:
(i) that the two respondents have no right to sign a requisition for convening a meeting for considering a "non confidence motion", as the two respondents, namely Naranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi, stood disqualified and the requisition submitted by some members of the Committee including the respondents was bad in law, and
(ii) that the notice given by S.D.O.(C) was served on the petitioners on 21.4.1997 for , the meeting fixed for 2.5.1997. Thus, a notice of 15 days was not given as required in Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.
4. Respondents No. 9 and 10 have, in their joint reply, challenged the petitioners plea regarding disqualification. It has been argued that the respondents, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sard Devi had not been declared disqualified under Section 13-A of the Haryana Municipal Act. Such disqualification would occur after enquiry in accordance with law and not merely on the petitioners allegations. Moreover, the requisition was submitted by nine members out of ten members and if the two respondents, Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi, were excluded, the requisition would still be valid requisition. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 72-A requires a requisition, for a motion of no-confidence, to be signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members of the Municipal Committee. It is also argued that power of removal of the member on account of disqualification vested in the State Government under Section 14 of the Haryana Municipal Act. Unles
