IMPORTANT POINT
Participation in subsequent elections after a No Confidence Motion constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the motion, reinforcing principles of estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

(Sudhir Singh, J.) :

By way of the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari for quashing the proceedings dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), whereby No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner, who was the Vice President in Municipal Committee, Uklana. A further prayer has been made for staying operation of the impugned proceedings and the proceedings for holding fresh election for the post of Vice President in Municipal Committee, Uklana.

2. The facts, as would emerge from the writ petition are that in the year 2021, the elections of Municipal Committee, Uklana for Municipal Councilors from different wards were held. In the said elections, the petitioner was elected as a Municipal Councilor from Ward No.7. The Municipal Committee, Uklana consists of total 13 Wards and as such there are total 13 elected Municipal Councilors. It is the case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid elections, the petitioner was elected as Vice President on 19.03.2021, unanimously and, accordingly, he took oath of the office. On 28.03.2023, a resolution was passed for calling a special meeting of the Municipal Committee regarding No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, which was handed over to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, respondent No.2 had appointed respondent No.3 i.e, Sub Divisional Officer (C), Barwala as Returning Officer to preside over the said special meeting. On 21.04.2023, a notice was issued by respondent No.3 for calling the aforesaid special meeting regarding No Confidence Motion for 11.05.2023. Accordingly, the said special meeting was held on 11.05.2023 and No Confidence Motion was passed. It is the case of the petitioner that the very moving of the aforesaid No Confidence Motion was wrong, illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and ultra-vires the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and also the Constitution of India. It is stated by the petitioner that in the aforesaid No Confidence Motion, respondent No.3 had explained the method as to how to vote and, thus, he had directly influenced the said procedure, which was in clear violation to the provisions of the Act, whereas as per notification dated 11.12.2020, the Returning Officer was to read the motion for no confidence and declare it to be open for discussion and he was not required to speak on the merits of motion. It is alleged that even the videography of the No Confidence Motion proceedings was tempered with by the respondent No.3. It was further stated that the President and the other Councilors were allowed to take mobiles inside the House and through the said electronic gadgets, they had influenced the entire proceedings of the No Confidence Motion, which is against the provisions of Section 73 of the Act. While referring to the videography clips (Annexure P-4), it is stated that respondent No.5- Satwant Singh had asked the members to click their photos at the time of casting their votes, which was in blatant violation of Section 52 of the Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 himself counted the votes and did not show the same to any of the Municipal Councilors present in the meeting as to how many votes were cast in favour or against the No Confidence Motion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the No Confidence Motion conducted by respondent No.3 was totally in violation to Sections 53 and 73 of the Act. It is further contended that said proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in a premeditated manner and respondent No.3 had acted arbitrarily and illegally so as to remove the petitioner from the post of Vice President. It is further contended that the irregularities committed during the No Confidence Motion were captured in the videography, but respondent No.3 had edited the said video clips in order to give undue advantage to