P&H High Court Sets Aside Municipal President's Removal, Cites 'Cryptic and Non-Speaking' Government Order

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order removing the President of the Nagar Council, Samana, ruling that the government's decision was "totally cryptic and non-speaking." A division bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that the state authorities failed to consider critical objections raised by the petitioner regarding the procedural legality of the no-confidence motion meeting.

The case was remanded back to the State Government for a fresh, reasoned decision.

Case Background

The petitioner, Ashwani Gupta, challenged the order dated 17/21.10.2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of Punjab's Department of Local Government, which removed him from his post as President of the Nagar Council, Samana. The removal was based on a no-confidence resolution purportedly passed against him in a meeting held on 15.02.2025.

The core legal question before the High Court was whether the government's order, passed under Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act , 1911, was valid when it failed to address the petitioner's specific challenge to the legitimacy of the meeting itself.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner argued that the no-confidence meeting was convened in direct contravention of Section 25 of the Punjab Municipal Act , 1911. It was contended that under the Act, upon receiving a requisition for a no-confidence motion, the President has a 14-day period to schedule a meeting. Only if the President fails to do so can the councillors convene a meeting themselves. In this instance, the councillors allegedly held the meeting prematurely, before the expiry of the statutory 14-day period, rendering the meeting and any resolution passed therein invalid. The petitioner submitted that this crucial objection was completely ignored in the government's removal order.

Respondents' Counsel: Counsel for the State of Punjab and the Municipal Council did not dispute the factual timeline of the meeting and the requisition. They argued that the Additional Chief Secretary had passed the order after having "thoroughly examined" the President's reply to the show-cause notice. The respondents agreed to have the court pass an order based on the existing record without filing a formal reply.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court observed that the petitioner had raised a significant grievance concerning the validity of the meeting where the no-confidence motion was passed. The bench emphasized that when such a fundamental procedural objection is raised, the state is duty-bound to consider it and provide "due reasoning" if it chooses to overrule it.

In a pivotal observation, the Court stated: > "A bare perusal of the order dated 17/21.10.2025... would show that the said objection has not even being considered and dealt with much less giving a due reasoning for overruling such objection raised at the hands of the petitioner."

Finding the government's order devoid of any application of mind to the petitioner's primary contention, the Court deemed it legally unsustainable.

Final Decision

Concluding that the impugned order was "totally cryptic and non-speaking," the High Court set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the State of Punjab with a clear directive:

• First, determine whether the meeting where the no-confidence resolution was passed was validly held in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act , 1911.
• Only after establishing the meeting's legality can the State decide whether the no-confidence resolution itself was passed in accordance with the law.

The petition was disposed of with these directions, and any pending applications were also closed.