AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Bahri, J.
Election of members of the Municipal Committee Ambala City was held on 31.9.1987. Thirty members were duly elected, including Ch. Rajindrepal Singh and ten others, the present petitioners ; and Shri Kirti Parshad Jain and others (respondents No. 5 to 17). Under byelaw 18 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws, in the first meeting of the municipal committee they were supposed to elect the members of the subcommittees as required u/s 31(f) of the Haryana Municipal Act. Four members of each subcommittee were to be elected. The first meeting was held on November 11, 1987. An objection was raised and the meeting was adjourned to seek clarification from the Government of Haryana regarding interpretation to be put on byelaw 18 relating to election of the subcommittees providing selection to be by ballot and "by single nontransferable vote". Without waiting for the clarification of the Government, the second meeting of the committee was held on 19.11.1987. Again, objection was raised regarding the interpretation to be put on byelaw 18. Having not received satisfactory reply, some of the members of the committee boycotted the meeting, whereas the remaining members elected members of the subcommittees, the details of which are given in para 11 of the writ petition. A copy of the resolution passed in the meeting is Annexure P2. Representations were made to different authorities, including the Chief Minister, Minister for Local Bodies, SecretarycumCommissioner, Haryana Local Bodies, and Sub Divisional Officer, Ambala City (copy of the same being Annexure P3 dated 24.11.1987). Having received no reply, the petitioners sent a registered notice dated 16.12.1987 (Annexure P4). The petitioners also moved Director, Local Bodies, with a representation (copy Annexure P5 dated 13.1.1988). Since the authorities did not interfere in the matter, civil writ petition being CWP No. 2581 of 1988 was filed in the High Court. The same was dismissed vide copy of the order Annexure P6 dated 4.4.1988, with the following observations :
"The petitioners should first resort to their ordinary remedies known to law. The present case does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. Dismissed."
Thereafter a petition was sent to the SecretarycumCommissioner, Local Self Government, on 6.4.1988, alleging the constitution of the subcommittee as illegal. For want of clarification from the Government regarding interpretation of byelaw 18 it was prayed that resolution dated 19.11.1987, be suspended. Having received no reply, Civil Writ petition No. 7986 of 1988 was filed for a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.9.1988. Even thereafter the representation of the petitioners was not decided, when the present writ petition was filed for quashing resolution dated 19.11.1987 (Annexure P2) and setting aside the election of the SubCommittee as proper procedure was not followed, and further directing the respondents to decided representation P7 and interpret byelaw 18, as also to quash the alleged interpretation of byelaw 18 as given by the respondentState, as alleged by the Committee.
Respondents No. 4 to 17 while contesting the writ petition, took preliminary objections that alternative remedies were available which were not availed of and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, that the present petition was barred by the principle of resjudicata and that the resolution electing members of the subcommittees could not be challenged by way of a writ petition, as remedy of election petition was available. On merits it was alleged that the true interpretation of byelaw 18 was that at the election of the members of the subcommittees, each member could cast votes equal to the number of members of the committee to be elected, and not one vote. It was further averred that since the members were elected for a year, and the period having expired, the writ petition had become infructuous. Different grounds taken in the writ petition were refuted. Annexures R 5/1 and R 5/2 were filed along with the reply, indicating the decision of the State Government on the interpretation of byelaw 18.
On behalf of the respondents, it has been argued that since the election of the members of the subcommittee could be challenged by filing a election petition, no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the election. After hearing arguments of both the sides, I find that this contention cannot be accepted. Section 31(f) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, empowers the State Government to provide byelaws for the appointment of subcommittee. Byelaws 17 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws provides for the municipal committee to appoint three subcommittees to assist in its administration, such as (1) Finance SubCommittee, (2) Public Works & Buildings Sub Committee, (3) Sanitation and Water Supply Sub Committee. Byelaw 18 reads as under :
"Each subcommittee shall consist of four members. Members of subcommittees shall be elected at a general meeting of the Committee, as soon as possible, after a new committee has been constituted. Election shall be by a ballot and by single nontransferable vote. The term of the members of subcommittee shall be one year from the date of their election. A member, elected to fill a casual vacancy, shall hold office for the unexpired period of the member in whose place he is elected."
As per byelaw 18, each subcommittee has to consist of four members which are to be elected at the general meeting of the committee. Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, define election under rule 2(e) as under :
" `election'' means the election of a member, president or videpresident of a committee."
These Rules, thus govern the election of a member, president or vicepresident of a committee. Rule 74 provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these Rules. Rule 74, thus, has reference to an election defined under rule 2(e) reproduced above. Rule 75 provides for election petition of a member, president or vicepresident.
From a perusal of the aforesaid rules and the byelaws, it is clear that the Election Rules apply to election of members of the municipal committee, president or vicepresident of the municipal committee, and not to election/appointment of the members of the subcommittee under byelaw 18 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws. Therefore, no alternative remedy by way of election petition was available to the petitioners to challenge the resolution passed by the municipal committee, electing members of the subcommittees. I need not, therefore, refer in detail to certain decisions cited on behalf of the respondents to contend that the writ petition is not maintainable, as alternative remedy by way of election petition was available. Those decisions are Bachan Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner Kurukshetra, 1985 PLJ 281 : 1986 R.R.R. 558 and Chandu Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1985 PLJ 492 : 1986 R.R.R. 123.
It has further been argued on behalf of the respondents that the Government gave the interpretation of byelaw 18 as contained in Annexures R 5/1 and R 5/2 and the same was communicated to petitioner No. 1 on November 28, 1988, as per original record with the counsel for the respondents, and this fact was concealed in the writ petition and making wrong averments that no decision was taken by the State Government, the writ petition was got admitted and that it should be dismissed on that ground. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Dharamsala Bawa Saran Dass v. Financial Commissioner, 1981 PLJ 413. This contention cannot be accepted. No doubt, no reference was made to the interpretation given by the State Government. However, in the heading of the writ petition, a direction in this respect was asked for to quash the alleged interpretation of byelaw 18 of Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws as given by the respondentsState, as alleged by the committee.
It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that this writ petition should be dismissed on account of delay. I am afraid on this point, writ petition cannot be dismissed. As already noticed above, the petitioners twice approached this Court for the relief and they were put off on these preliminary objections. It was ultimately in November, 1988 that Annexures R 5/1 and R 5/2 were issued by the State giving the interpretation of byelaw 18, and, thus, there is no delay in approaching this Court.
The question involved in this case is as to interpretation of byelaw 18 as reproduced above. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there has to be one election for one subcommittee and that election has to be by ballot and by a single nontransferable vote. To elucidate, it has been urged that if there are more than four candidates for the election of members of a subcommittee, the election would be held by one ballot, meaning thereby that names of all the candidates would be mentioned on one ballot paper and "by single nontransferable vote", as mentioned in byelaw 18 reproduced above it would mean that every member of the municipal committee will have the right to cast one vote which would be nontransferable, meaning thereby if a member votes `A'' candidate it will not be treated for `B'' candidate if `A'' is not elected. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have argued that if there are more than four candidates the names of all the candidates will be included in one ballot paper and each member will be casting four votes for four members of the subcommittee and if a person is not elected, to whom a member had voted, that vote will not be transferable to another candidate. And the interpretation given by the State Government in Annexure R 5/1 and R 5/2 is correct. Annexure R 5/1 is a letter from the CommissionercumSecretary to Government Haryana, Local Government Department. The decision of the Government as mentioned therein is as under :
"Government have examined the matter carefully. The words "by ballot" means that the elections shall be by voting and not by show of the lands. For this purpose ballot papers containing name of each candidate who stands for election shall have to be got printed and voting shall have to be recorded by casting ballot papers. The words "single nontransferable" vote means that each member of the committee shall have the right to cast one vote in favour of each member and this each member shall have the right to cast four votes for each subcommittees as four members of eachsub committees are to be elected."
This opinion is reproduced in Annexure R 5/2, a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Committee, Ambala City, addressed to Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate, who is petitioner No. 1.
The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to rule 21 of the Haryana Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971 in support of his argument that one vote was provided for offices of the Panches. Rule 21 reads as under :
"Voting shall be by ballot and every person wishing to record his vote shall do so in person and not by proxy by means of a ballot paper (prescribed by the Government for Punjab only) to be supplied to a vote which shall bear a serial number and such official mark, if any, as may be specified under rule 16 (and every person shall be entitled to) two nontransferable votes, one for the office of Sarpanch and the other for the offices of Panches."
This rule was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Sunder Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1983 CLJ 677 and it was held that this provision makes it more than clear that every elector is given one ballot paper for casting in favour of any of the candidates for the office of Panches. The interpretation placed on rule 21, as referred to above, cannot be applied to the provisions contained in byelaw 18 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws in view of the rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah, AIR 1978 S.C. 1132 : 1979(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 708 as under :
"It is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, more so if the two Acts in which the same words are used are not cognate Acts. Neither the meaning nor the definition of the term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally."
Bylaw 18 as reproduced above, if read as a whole makes it abundantly clear that for the election of each member of the subcommittee, the member of the committee will be having a single nontransferable vote. The term of the member of the subcommittee is one year as mentioned in the byelaw and if a vacancy occurs, a member can be elected to fill in such a vacancy to hold office for the unexpired period of the term of the member in whose placed he is elected, meaning thereby that in the case of a vacancy the election of the member of the subcommittee is to be held as provided for in byelaw 18. It cannot be argued that once four members have been elected, and the members of the committee have exercised their right, they cannot again exercise the same for election of one of them on account of occurrence of the vacancy. The words, "by single nontransferable vote" in the context are to be read one vote for one member of the subcommittee which cannot be transferred in case that member is not elected in the election. This interpretation, as put by the State in Annexure R 5/1, is further in consonance with the proper functioning of the municipal committee which has to be constituted by elected representatives. Since the committee is to function by resolutions passed by the majority of the subcommittee, the same majority is required to be projected in the subcommittees so that recommendations of subcommittees are accepted by the committee.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even minority members of the committee also should be represented in the subcommittees and byelaw 18 should be so interpreted, as urged by him, cannot be accepted. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are two interpretations possible of byelaw 18, the one is to be accepted which will help in harmonious interpretation of the byelaws as well as functioning of the municipal committee.
For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.