Altaf Ahmad Lone vs Union Territory Of Jk &Ors

Two applications were moved by the applicant/Respondent No. 11, seeking vacation of order and proceeding against the petitioner for having

furnished wrong information on affidavit.

While hearing this matter, the Court proposed to consider the main writ petition qua the relief claimed which is agreed by the learned counsel for the

parties.

The petitioner by medium of the instant petition, has questioned the application, which he states to be a “No Confidence Motion†moved before

Deputy Commissioner. Ganderbal/Respondent No. 3 herein on 20.12.2019, to be declared as null and void and prays that proceedings be quashed,

with further relief of allowing the petitioner to continue as President of Municipal Committee, Ganderal and complete his term of five years being a

declared President of Municipal Committee, Ganderal, as per SRO 347 dated 27.05.2019.

Mr M.A. Beigh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the claim made on the strength of the averments and

documents on record, has invited attention of the Court to the resolution adopted on 11.11.2019, in a meeting headed by Nazir Ahmad Ganie,

Councilor, Ward No. 09, in which, the councilors have decided to move vote of No Confidence Motion against the President Mr. Altaf Ahmad Lone

(petitioner herein) for his non-performance and passed resolution of No Confidence Motion under section 25 of J&K Municipal Act, 2000. Mr Beigh,

learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited further attention of the Court to the resolution adopted on 19.11.2019 of the elected body of

Municipal Committee, Ganderbal, under the Chairmanship of President, namely, Altaf Ahmad Lone (petitioner herein) to demonstrate that the No

Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner, failed by a majority vote. Mr Beigh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no scope

for moving second motion within one year of the first motion, in terms of the bar as made in sub section 4 of section 25 of the J&K Municipal Act,

2000.

Mr Molvi Aijaz, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 11, submits that the averments made and the contentions raised qua the reliefs claimed in

the writ petition, are not only misconceived but are also misdirected as there is no motion moved and adopted on the first occasion and no question of

second motion. Mr Molvi Aijaz, learned counsel further submits that the first motion, of which reference is made by Mr M.A. Beigh, learned counsel

for the petitioner, is placed before the President (petitioner herein) and decision taken not in tune with mandate of law, which has reference to sub

section (3) of section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 200, which mandates that the President or Vice-President of the municipality shall

not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him. It is further provided that such meeting shall be presided over

by such a person, and convened in such manner, as may be prescribed and the persons against whom a motion of no-confidence is moved, shall have

a right to vote and to take part in the proceedings of such a meeting. Mr Molvi Aijaz, learned counsel for Respondent No. 11 submits that the

councilors are within their right to move a No Confidence Motion before the competent authority for its adoption and there is no scope for the

petitioner to approach this Court in the midway of process of such motion, when no decision is taken against the petitioner. He further submits that the

petitioner cannot by any stretch of imagination approach the Court and stall the proceedings warranted in terms of the law, governing the subject.

Mr Rais Ud Din Ganai, learned GA submits that the procedure for governing adoption of No Confidence Motion is regulated by the bylaws notified

in terms of SRO 25 dated 03.02.2005, regulating the procedure for conduct of the election for President. He has made reference to bylaws 5, which

provides that the meeting to conduct election of the President shall be presided over by a Member who is not a candidate for such election and who is

either the consensus candidate or the senior most amongst the Members, as may be determined by the Executive Officer. The presiding Member shall

have the right to exercise his vote in the election of the President. He further submits that the process for election of the President is initiated and

completed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee.

When asked Mr RaisUd Din Ganai, learned GA submits that the procedure which is adopted for election of President, is followed in removing on

No Confidence Motion.

Mr M.A. Beigh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation/No Confidence Motion moved under the signatures of

Respondents 6 to 13, bears the signature of Sajad Ahmad Wani, who is shown as Vice President, Ward No. 14, amounts to fraud because the said

councilor has already resigned from the post of vice president due to personal reasons, which resignation stands accepted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the matter and perused the records.

Court is not inclined to record any finding or make observation qua that merits of the case because that may prejudice the cause of the parties but

while dealing with the matter, the Court has come to the conclusion that there is no motion adopted, resulting in ouster of the petitioner as President

qua application of the procedure, which may give him a cause to agitate or what has been stated in the petition. The submissions recorded of the

learned counsel for the parties shall not have any effect on the action, if any, undertaking by the competent authority qua No Confidence Motion for

his decision.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition shall stand disposed of as settled. The parties are free to approach the competent authority for

seeking the enforcement of motion in accordance with law. Interim direction, if any, shall also stand vacated.