Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1276 (PNJ)

Azmat Ali Khan v. State of Punjab

2001-11-09

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2001
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This writ petition challenges resolution No. 548 dated 10.8.2001, Annexure P-10 to the writ petition, passed by Municipal Council, Malerkotla, whereby 22 members supported the proposal for no confidence motion and 4 members opposed it in a meeting held for considering no confidence motion, which are presided over by the petitioner himself, as President. 2. The petitioner was elected as Municipal Councillor in election held in February, 1998 and was then elected as President of the Municipal Council in a meeting held on 14.4.1998. Municipal Council, respondent No. 2 has been constituted under Section 4 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act). Section 22 of the Act provides that a President may be removed from the office inter alia on a resolution passed by 2/3rd members of the Council. Vide letter dated 28.6.2001, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, 6 members (constituting more than 1/5th of the total number) of the Municipal Council sought to requisition a meeting to consider whether the petitioner had majority in the house. Under Section 25(2) of the Act, a President is obliged to convene a meeting, if the meeting is requisitioned by not less than 1/5th of the members and Section 25(3) of the Act provides that if a meeting is not so called, the members themselves can call a meeting after expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition within 30 days of the making of requisition. The President failed to call a meeting and though the Executive Officer circulated agenda for a special meeting to be held on 27.7.2001 to consider the requisition from 6 Councillors alleging that the President did not have the confidence of the house, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 236/237 of the Act before the Government for setting aside the requisition dated 26.7.2001. Vide order dated 24.7.2001, Annexure P-5, it was directed that no confidence proposal may not be considered in the meeting on 27.7.2001 or on any subsequent date. Contention of the petitioner in revision petition as reflected in the stay order was that on 12.2.2001, no confidence motion had been defeated and 6 members of the Council could not requisition a meeting to consider no confidence motion. Contention of the petitioner in revision petition as reflected in the stay order was that on 12.2.2001, no confidence motion had been defeated and 6 members of the Council could not requisition a meeting to consider no confidence motion. The Secretary to the Government vide order dated 2.8.2001 dismissed the revision petition finding that there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no confidence motion had been defeated on 12.2.2001 and therefore, the meeting could not be called and accordingly, it was directed that a meeting held on 10.8.2001 may consider no confidence motion (Annexure P-8). In view of the said order, agenda for the meeting was circulated by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council on 6.8.2001 intimating that the meeting will be held on 10.8.2001 at 3.00 P.M. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 10.8.2001 and a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed on 20.8.2001 for quashing the resolution dated 10.8.2001. 3. Notice of motion was issued on 27.8.2001 and a written statement was filed by respondent No. 3 and separately by respondents No. 4 to 24. A separate written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 also. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requisition of the meeting was illegal in absence of specific language in the said requisition that the purpose of the meeting was to pass no confidence motion. It was submitted that in election matters things are to be done strictly in the manner provided and reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgment in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983. Reference is also made to Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994-2) PLR 208 ; Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal v State of Punjab, (2001-2) 128 PLR 739 and Ranjana Aggarwal v. Union of India, 1996(1) RSJ 734. It was further argued that meeting held on 10.8.2001, in which proposal for no confidence motion was passed, was not valid having not been called by the President or Vice- President or the members, as required under Section 25 of the Act and also for the reason that the said meeting was not called within the period specified in the said provision. It is also submitted that resolution, Annexure P-10 was invalid in absence of a request for removal of the President and the same could not be acted upon as no confidence motion. It was further argued that voting on no confidence motion could be only be secret ballot. Reliance is placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Rajinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 7688 of 2000 decided on 16.8.2001. 6. Counsel for respondent No. 3 and counsel for respondents No. 4 to 24 submitted that the contentions of the petitioner had no force. It was submitted that requisition of the meeting, Annexure P-3, cannot be held to be violative of Section 22 of the Act on the ground that it does not specify that the meeting was being called for passing of no confidence motion. It was submitted that the requisition clearly specifies the purpose of the meeting by mentioning that the petitioner did not have majority and a meeting should be called by the petitioner to prove his majority Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Surjit Mehta v. State of Haryana, (1992-2)102 PLR 143. Reliance is also placed on Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(2) PLJ 393 para 13, wherein it was observed that the holder of office could not be allowed to frustrate a no confidence motion. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that no confidence motion passed by show of hands would be valid, when the bye-laws provide that secret ballot will be held only on a demand and no such demand is made. It is also submitted that vide notification dated 17.5.2001, it has been specifically provided in Rule 4 of the Punjab Municipal (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1994 that voting for office of President etc. shall be by show of hands. It is also submitted that under the eye-laws of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, secret ballot is to be held when demanded (bye-law No. 20), which is in pari materia with bye-law No. 26 considered in Sarwan Singhs case (supra) and in the present case, no demand for secret ballot was made nor the petitioner has so alleged. In view of the submissions, counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is without any merit. 7. In view of the submissions, counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is without any merit. 7. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions and submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RRR 538, an amendment cannot be operative to existing committees and will apply only to committees constituted after the amendment. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record of the case. 9. I find the petition to be wholly without any merit. I have perused the requisition, Annexure P-3 and I find that it cannot be said that the same does not fall under Section 25 of the Act. The decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner on strict construction of election provisions have no application on the facts of the present case. The requisition is clearly a requisition to consider as no confidence motion and was validly made by more than 1/5th of the total strength of the members. There is no statutory format laid down for requisitioning a meeting. I also find no infirmity in the notice of meeting dated 6.8.2001, Annexure P-9 on the ground that the meeting could be called either by the President or by the members. The members requisitioned the meeting and a meeting was scheduled to be held on 27.7.2001 as shown by Annexure P-4. It was the petitioner himself, who filed a revision petition and got the meeting stayed vide Annexure P-5 and as a result of the dismissal of his revision petition, vide Annexure P-8 the meeting was again ordered to be held. The petitioner could not take advantage of his own wrong for submitting that since he got the meeting stayed and period of 30 days expired, no meeting could thereafter be held. The meeting held on 10.8.2001 was very much presided over by the petitioner himself and was thus, a meeting held by the petitioner as well as by the members, as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. An interpretation cannot be given to defeat the statutory provisions and permit a person, against whom overwhelming majority of members had no confidence to continue in office. I follow the decision in Parkash Singhs case (supra). I am unable to find any support, for contentions raised by the petitioner, in any of the decisions cited. An interpretation cannot be given to defeat the statutory provisions and permit a person, against whom overwhelming majority of members had no confidence to continue in office. I follow the decision in Parkash Singhs case (supra). I am unable to find any support, for contentions raised by the petitioner, in any of the decisions cited. The voting by show of hands can also not be held to be bad and I respectfully rely upon the decision of this court in Sarwan Singhs case (supra) which is fully applicable. A decision of this Court in Rajinder Pal Kaurs case (supra) does not apply to the present facts. In this view of the matter, I need not to go into the question whether notification dated 19.7.2001 expressly providing voting by show of hands will apply, though prima-facie I am of the view that the said notification will clearly apply to the present case. 10. For the above reasons, the petition is wholly without any merit and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25, 000/- payable to respondent No. 2. Petition dismissed.