The validity of Rule 75 under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, and its role in providing stability in the democratic system.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Municipal Corporation, Panipat/respondent No.4 along with other Members in the elections held on 2.6.2013, the result of which was declared on 4.6.2013. Twenty-four elected members, in turn, elected respondent No.5 as the Mayor on 3.7.2013 who assumed office on 4.7.2013.

2. Just after a period of six months, some of the elected Members appear to have had a change of heart and wanted to remove respondent No.5 from the post of Mayor and, thus, moved a no-confidence motion with request to the Commissioner/respondent No.3 to call a meeting for the said purpose.

3. The meeting was, however, not called in view of the provisions of Rule 75 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Election Rules, 1994 framed under The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 as there is a bar to calling a meeting for such a no-confidence motion during the first year of the elected period of the Mayor.

4. It may, however, be added here that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.1039 of 2014 aggrieved by the meeting not being called, but withdrew the same on 22.1.2014 where it was observed that respondent No.5 may examine whether Rule-75 of the said rules was attracted in view of the requisition made. It is pursuant thereto that the respondent No.3 passed an order that in view of the said Rules no meeting could be called.

5. The petitioner being one such Member, who had moved no-confidence motion, now has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the vires of the rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to refer to the provisions of Article 243-R of the Constitution of India providing for the composition of the municipalities. Sub-clause (2)(b) of the said Article authorises the legislature of the State by law to provide for the manner of election of the chairperson of the municipality. We, thus, posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how by the aforesaid act impugned of not calling a meeting is there a violation of the provisions of this clause of the Article. It is fairly conceded that really it could not be said to be a violation of any provision of the Constitution of India as the clause only authorises the legislature to provide for the manner of the election of the chairperson of the municipality and, thus, it is the legislature which should do the needful under the provisions of the relevant Act.

7. Now turning to the relevant Act, the complete process is prescribed for election of a Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor, Deputy Mayor as also the term of office under Section 36, which reads as under:-

“36. Election of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor, Deputy Mayor and their term of office.- (1) The Corporation shall elect one of its elected members to be Mayor for such period and in the manner as may be prescribed and the member so elected shall become Mayor of the Corporation:

Provided that if the office of Mayor is vacated during his tenure on account of death, resignation or no confidence motion, a fresh election within a period of one month of the vacancy shall be held from the same category, for the remainder period.

(2) The Corporation shall also elect in the manner prescribed, two of its elected members to be the Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The term of office of the Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor shall be for a period of five years or for the residue period of their offices as a member, whichever is less: Provided that if the office of the Senior Deputy Mayor or Deputy Mayor is vacated during his tenure on account of death, resignation or no confidence motion, a fresh election for the remainder period shall be held within one month of the vacancy.

(3) The Mayor shall be entitled to the payment of such honorarium and may be given such facilities in respect of residential accommodation, telephone, conveyance and the like as may be prescribed.

(4) The Mayor shall have access to the record of the Corporation