AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The controversy here is with regard to the power and competence of the Deputy Commissioner to convene a meeting of the Municipal Committee for consideration a motion of no confidence against the President or Vice President of the Municipal Committee.
It is in the context of a no confidence motion against the President of the Municipal Committee, Ladwa that the matter in issue arises. The Municipal Committee, Ladwa has 14 members, one of whom is a nominated member, while ail the others are elected. After the election to this Municipal Committee in October, 1991, the petitioner, Kapil Garg was elected the President thereof, which was duly notified on Decembers, 1991.
On December 2, 1991, ten members of the Municipal Committee, Ladwa, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, to requisition a meeting to consider a no confidence motion against the President, by submitting their affidavits in this behalf. It is averred by the petitioner, but converted by the respondents, that on the next day i.e. December 3, 1992, three of these ten members conveyed it to the Deputy Commissioner that their affidavits submitted to him, were forged. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner on December 4, 1992, convened the meeting sought for December 7, 1992, with the requisite notices being issued for the purpose. No meeting was, however, held on that day. The Deputy Commissioner as also the other respondents, attributing this to the law and order situation arising from the incidents at Ayodhya, the day before, on account of which, it is said, that the District Development and Panchayat Officer, who had been authorised to convene the meeting, was put on emergency duty. A meeting was, therefore, convened again, this time for January 4, 1993 and it was at this meeting that all the 11 members of the Municipal Committee attending it, voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter the petitioner submitted his resignation (Annexure R6) to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who had been authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting that day. This resignation was, however, not accepted, as on the next day, the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner not to do so and also on account of the interim order of this Court that the result of the meeting be not declared.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioner, sought to assail the validity of the meeting held on January 4, 1993 by laying stress upon the fact that it had been convened by the Deputy Commissioner without the requisition for such meeting having earlier been submitted to the President or Vice President. The point sought to be canvassed being, that in terms of Section 25 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Aet) the requisition for such a meeting, has in the first instance, to be submitted to the President and in his absence to the Vice President and it is only after the President or the Vice President, fail to convene a meeting within ten days of such requisition that the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to convene the meeting. Reference in this behalf being made to the provisions Section 25 of the Act which read as under:--
"25. Time for holding meetings. (1) Every committee shall meet for the transaction of business at least once in every month at such time as may, from time to time, be fixed by the bye-laws.
(2) The President or, in his absence or during his incapacity to attend to his duties or during the vacancy of his office, the Vice President may, whenever he thinks fit and shall, within a period often days from the date of receipt of a requisition signed by not less than one fifth of the total number of members of the committee, convene either an ordinary or a special meeting at any other time :
Provided that the requisition shall specify the purpose for which the meeting is to be held.
(3) If the President or the Vice-President fails to convene a meeting of the committee within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of such requisition, the members who signed the requisition may request the Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of request under sub-section (3) shall within a period of ten days from the date of such request, either himself convene the meeting or designate any other officer for this purpose.
(5) A meeting referred to in sub-section (4) shall be presided over by the Deputy Commissioner or the officer designated by him, but neither he nor such officer shall have the right to vote at such meeting.
The contention raised, though attractive on the face of it, cannot, however, stand scrutiny, when regard is had to the fact that the legislature has, in its wisdom, treated a motion of no confidence against the President or the Vice President as a category apart, by making special provision for it in Section 2! of the Act which provides:
Motion of no confidence against President or Vice President:
(1) A motion of no confidence against the President or Vice President may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner, as the Deputy Commissioner may authorise, shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub-section (1) in the manner laid down in the rules, and shall preside at such meeting.
(3) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the members of the committee, the President or Vice President as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office.
(4) If a no confidence motion is passed against the President and the Vice President simultaneously or otherwise, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of the area in which municipality is situated or any other officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Deputy Commissioner shall hence forth exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the President till the election or appointment of a President is notified or a Vice President is elected.
(5) A meeting referred to in sub-section (2) shall be presided over by the Deputy Commissioner or the officer authorised by him, but neither he nor such officer shall have the right to vote at such meeting.
Indeed, in the face of this provision of law, there can be no escape from the conclusion that a motion of no confidence against the President or the Vice President can only be brought forth in terms of Section 21 of the Act and the provisions of Section 25 do not at all come into play with regard to such motion.
Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner sought to rule out the applicability of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act on the ground that no rules had so far been framed for the manner in which the Deputy Commissioner is to convene a meeting for considering a motion of no confidence against the President or the Vice President. This precise argument was raised before and negatived by the Division Bench in Surjit Mehta v. The State of Haryana 1992 (2) P&H LR 143 where it was held, "when no specific law provides for making such a motion to the President or the Vice President as rules have not so far been framed, the action of the Deputy Commissioner to entertain such a motion who was competent to convene the meeting for consideration of such motion, cannot be held to be without jurisdiction or against the provisions of the Act" A view with which we, with respect, wholly concur. Similar was the view taken by another Division Bench in C.W.P. No. 15538 of 1992 (Suresh Kumar v. The State of Haryana) decided on Nov. 27, 1992.
A plain reading of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act too show that the power to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, with reference to the convening of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the President or the Vice President has not, in any manner, been made dependent upon rules being framed in this behalf. Even in the absence of rules, therefore, the power remains unaffected except, of course, that it has to be exercised in a fair and just manner.
What led this matter to be referred to the Full Bench, was the apparent contrary view expressed by third Judge, namely, Justice Ashok Brian in C.W.P. 6642 of 1992 (Ramesh Chander Sehgal v. State of Haryana) where in dealing with the interim relief to be granted, the Hon''ble Judge in his order of May 29, 1992, in C.M. No. 4353 of 1992, observed: --
"According to Section 25 of the Act, petition for requisitioning a meeting had to be presented to the President or in his absence to the Vice President who were duty bound to convene the meeting within ten days from the date of receipt of such requisition. On his failure to do so, the members who signed the requisition then could have requested the Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting and then and only then the Deputy Commissioner could convene the meeting by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act, such a procedure could not be by-passed.
It will be seen that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, which, as shown earlier, deal specifically with a motion of no confidence against the President or the Vice President and empower the Deputy Commis- sioner to convene a meeting to consider it. This being so, the right and correcl view must obviously be taken to be that expressed by the Division Bench in Surjit Mehta''s case (supra).
Counsel for the petitioner next sought to assail the validity of the proceedings of the meeting held oil January 4, 1993, by pressing in aid Rule 6 of the Haryana Municipal Business Bye Laws, 1981, which provides as under:
"6. Estoppel (Section 3 l(b)). No decision of the committee shall be reopened before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of its recording except in compliance with an order of the Secretary to Government, Haryana. Local Government Department or of the Commissioner of the Division or the Deputy Commissioner of the District or on a requisition made any member and supported by two thirds of the members actually serving at that time. The requisition shall be circulated by the President for opinion of the members."
Counsel sought to construe this rule to mean that once a meeting has been convened to consider a motion of no confidence agains! the President or the Vice President, no other meeting to consider such a motion can be convened until the expiry of at least six months from the date thereof. The argument being that as, in the first instance, a meeting had been convened for December 7, 1992, no such meeting could be held until at least for six months thereafter and the meeting held on January 4, 1993 was thus invalid, on this ground. This is indeed a contention wholly devoid of merit. A plain reading of this rule does not admit such an interpretation. At any rate, as no meeting was held on December 7, 1992, as explained earlier, there was clearly no bar to the meeting of January 4, 1993,
Finally, the point was also sought to be raised that no prior notices had been issued for the meeting of January 4, 1993. This plea stands specifically controverted in the return filed by the respondents and cannot, therefore, be taken to render invalid the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner.
Such being the factual and legal position, no occasion is provided here for granting to the petitioner, the relief claimed. The writ petition is consequently hereby dismissed with Rs. 1,000/- as cosis.
Petition dismissed.