Babu Ram Aggarwal vs The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—The Petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 1st December, 1993, Annexure P-2,--vide which Respondent No. 3 adjourned the meeting called to consider the no-confidence motion on the ground that it lacked the requisite quorum.

Pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Court to the Advocate General, Haryana, Respondents put in appearance and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the writ petition as well as merit of the petition. Since the matter was urgent, the same was taken up for final adjudication at the motion hearing.

The Petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, and as per averments in the petition he had been discharging the duties honestly and sincerely as President of the Municipal Committee. Municipal Committee has 19 elected members and 2 members have been nominated. Thus the total strength of the members of the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, is 21, Members belonging to the opposite group of the Petitioner submitted a requisition to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, for calling a meeting for passing the No-Confidence Motion against the Petitioner. Before such a meeting could be convened by Deputy Commissioner, members opposing the Petitioner chose to tile C.W.P. No. 12640 of 1993 "Mukat Bihari Sanghi v. State of Haryana" seeking mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner for convening the meeting of the Municipal Committee. It is during the motion hearing of the petition that the S.D.O. (C) Narnaul as per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, issued a notice on 22nd November, 1993 u/s 21(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 for convening the meeting of Municipal Committee to consider no confidence motion on 1st December, 1993, at 11.00 a.m. Since the meeting had been convened, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. In view of the notice issued by the S.D.O. (C) Respondent No. 3, two members came present on 1st December, 1993 at 11.00 a.m. at the office of the Municipal Committee, Narnaul. The Chairman of the Committee i.e. S.D.O. (C) Respondent No. 3 adjourned the meeting for 10th December, 1993 on the ground of non completion of quorum. It is this order which is being challenged in this writ petition.

The primary Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order of the S.D.O. (C) adjourning the meeting to 10th December, 1993 is against law. Referring to Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, the counsel urged that there is no such stipulation in Section 21 of the Act which envisages adjournment of a no-confidence meeting. Since no rules have been framed as was envisaged u/s 21(1) of the Act, the matter has to be construed in the light of Section 21 as it exists. The fact that only two persons came present itself signifies that the Petitioner had the confidence of the majority of the members of the Municipal Committee. In any case, there being no provision under the Act to adjourn such a meeting for lack of quorum, the order Annexure P-2 is unsustainable hi law.

The counsel for the Respondents in support of the action initiated by Respondent No. 3 adjourning the meeting to December 10, 1993 urged that since meeting called for consideration of no confidence motion did not fulfill the, mandatory requirement of Section 27(1) of the Act which envisages quorum for such a meeting. The order, adjourning the meeting was perfectly just and, profiler, in the circumstances or the case, in any case, if one goes by the assertion of the Petitioner that he has the requisite majority to support him, no legitimate grouse could be made of the adjournment to consider such a motion. The learned Counsel further argued that the Act envisages two types of meeting i.e. (i) general; and (ii) special. In both these , meeting quorum has been stipulated. The provisions of Section 21, of the, Act have to be read in the light of provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act. Construed so, the order passed by Respondent No. 3 is perfectly just and legal.

We have considered the submissions of the respective counsel in the light of the material on record. Facts are, in fact, not in dispute. The members opposing the Petitioner as President of the Municipal Committee expressed no confidence in him and so sought a direction from this Court against the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, to convene such a meeting. The desired relief having been granted by the Court yet did not choose to pursue the matter any further as has been noticed in Annexure P-2 when only two members out of 21 members of the Municipal Committee came present pursuance to the notice issued to them to attend such a meeting. It is the admitted case of the parties that all the 21 members of the Municipal Committee were duly served for a meeting to be held on 1st December, 1993. Strictly speaking, the meeting called to consider no confidence motion does not come within the ambit of an, ordinary, meeting or special meeting as matter does not relate, to the transaction of the business of the Municipal Committee Motion for no confidence cannot be considered an ordinary business of the Municipal Committee. Since no rules have been framed under Sub-section (1) of Section 21, the provision with regard to quourm is not attracted in the case, of no confidence motion meeting. This Court, in the case of Surjit Mehta and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1992 (2) P.L.R. 143, had the occasion to consider, the provisions of Sections 21 and 25 of the Act. After exhaustively examining the provisions contained in Section 21, 25 of the Act and Rule 70 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, the motion against the President, could be parsed by 2/3rd members of the Committee, minor infraction of some procedural provision would not invalidate any such motion as the person who has been voted out can still claim majority as and when such a meeting is called to elect a person in his place. In that case, the Court was considering the effect of non-service of some of the Petitioners who thus complained of insufficiency of time for canvassing. In the present case, all the twenty-one members were intimated of the intended meeting who some how did not come present except the two. Natural inference would be that motion stood rejected.

We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the meeting called to consider no confidence motion could be adjourned for lack of alleged quorum as we are of the definite view that no such quorum is envisaged by the provisions of the Act. Resultantly, we allow this writ petition and quash the order Annexure P-2. No order as to costs.