The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for 2/3rd majority support of the total Members of the Municipal Council for initiating and passing a 'No Confidence Motion' as per the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for quashing of proceedings dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby 'No Confidence Motion' dated 19.06.2018 has been moved against the petitioner by some of the Councillors.

2. Petitioner was elected as Councillor from Ward No.16, Sirsa and thereafter he was elected as President. 'No Confidence Motion' was moved by some of the Councillors from different wards. There were total 31 elected Councillors and 'No Confidence Motion' was moved by some of the Councillors by putting their signatures showing themselves to be 2/3 rd of the total. Respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa (Civil) convened a meeting by circulating a letter dated 26.06.2018 by annexing the list of the Councillors who had signed 'No Confidence Motion'. The meeting could not be convened on 12.07.2018 due to non-availability of the SDO (Civil), Sirsa and thereafter it was convened on 01.08.2018. As per the case of the petitioner, 'No Confidence Motion' was moved by 20 Members, which was clear from the signatures of the Councillors. For moving 'No Confidence Motion', 2/3 rd Councillors were required. For showing 2/3 rd majority of the total number of Councillors, one Councillor from Ward No.30 had been shown to have signed the document at two places. Petitioner filed CWP No.16656 of 2018, however, that petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2018 by this Court being premature. Thereafter, the present petition was filed to challenge proceedings dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-5), whereby 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conduct of the official authorities was not only unlawful and illegal but mala fide also just to remove the petitioner from the office of the President. One Councillor namely Renu Bala had signed at two different places. It was done just to make the number of Councillors to be 2/3 rd of the total strength. Learned counsel also submits that said Renu Bala Councillor had put her signature against Ward No.30 twice i.e. once by putting her proper stamp and thereafter by rotating her stamp, to show as if she was the Councillor from Ward No.03. It was done just to show the strength of the Councillors to be 2/3 rd . Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.3 (Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa) called the meeting, which was totally illegal and contrary to the provisions as required for calling the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion'. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned letter Annexure P-l is totally violative of Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. As per the requirement of the law, the 'No Confidence Motion' can be carried out by minimum of 2/3 rd of total strength of the Councillors. The objections were filed by the petitioner but those objections were not considered. All this exercise has been done just to remove the petitioner from the office of President of the Municipal Council. Learned counsel further submits that notice of calling meeting of 'No Confidence Motion', should have been sent to all the Members of the Municipal Council and for calling the second meeting of 'No Confidence Motion', a period of six months was required, whereas the period of six months was not there between the first and the second meeting. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court rendered in cases Sanjeev Kumar Verma vs. Director, Urban Local Bodies, Chandigarh and others, 2015 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 991 , Sukhbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 1996(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 103 , Budho Devi vs. Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon 1998 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 80 and Ranbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 2011(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 681 . Learned counsel for respondents No.l to 3 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that 'No Confidence Motion' was signed by 20 Councillors. A wrong impres