JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - The petitioner being the Vice President of Municipal Council, Panchkula has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P.3), order dated 26.6.2009 (Annexure P.6) and order dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P.9) and further seeking mandamus directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to act in place of President in his absence of whenever vacancy occurs. 2. The prime question to be determined in the petition is as under:- “Whether the petitioner (Vice President) could act as a President for all intents and purposes when the election of the President is subjudice in the Courts?” 3. The general elections of the Municipal Council, Panchkula were held on 30.3.2008 whereby 31 members including the petitioner were duly elected. The petitioner was elected from Ward No. 12. Respondent No. 6 Ravinder Kumar Rawal was also elected as Councilor from Ward No. 14 and later on elected as President. Mr. V.K. Sood was also elected as Councilor from Ward No. 6 in the same election, however, he lost the election of President. The election of Ravinder Kumar Rawal came under challenge and the Election Tribunal, Panchkula, vide its order dated 4.5.2009, accepted the election petition and set aside his election. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed on 8.6.2009 by the Appellate Court. Ravinder Kumar Rawal also preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 9227 of 2009 which also met the same fate vide order dated 8.1.2010. Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2010 filed by Ravinder Kumar Rawal and LPA No. 1617 of 2010 filed by Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula and another were accepted by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2011, and the election of respondent No. 6-Ravinder Kumar Rawal was restored and he was held entitled to assume the office of the President for the remaining tenure. 4. The present petition directing the respondent to work in the office of the President was filed during the pendency of the earlier litigation, therefore, the petitioner being Vice President still seeks directions to allow him to work in the absence of President or when the vacancy occurs. 4. The present petition directing the respondent to work in the office of the President was filed during the pendency of the earlier litigation, therefore, the petitioner being Vice President still seeks directions to allow him to work in the absence of President or when the vacancy occurs. He has submitted that as soon as the post of President of the Municipal Council becomes vacant and the election of the President is set aside in view of the provisions of Sections 18, 21, 22-A, 25, 28, 35, 50 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1973). Bye-Laws 3, 20, 21, 23, 35, 36 and 44 of the Haryana Municipal Business Bye-Laws, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the Bye Laws 1981) and Rule XII.4, XIII.4 of Municipal Accounts Code, 1930 (hereinafter referred as Code 1930). It has been further submitted that there are statutory duties and functions to be performed by the Vice President in the absence of the President including chairing of the meetings, signing the cheques and files relating to the tenders. He has right to hold meetings, hear the problems of the people, perform the community service on behalf of the council, do development work and hear the grievances of the citizens but due to the absence of the President, all the aforesaid works have been put on hold for which respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are responsible. Though the Vice President in 2-3 Municipal Councils in Haryana are performing the functions and duties and also enjoying the privileges of the President under Haryana Business Bye-laws No.44 and in this respect there is a violation of the instructions issued vide letter dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure P-11). 5. In the written statement filed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and -3, some preliminary objections have been raised inter alia that since no order was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, therefore, the same was not maintainable. It has been further averred that in the light of the judgment dated 23.09.2009 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11377 of 2009 titled as Ravinder Kumar Rawal v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 2591(Annexure P.8) filing of the present writ petition is sheer misuse of process of law and no cause of action survives. No right of the petitioner, much less any statutory right has been infringed by any action of the respondents No. 1 to 3. None of the orders passed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 has been challenged. On merits, the respondents No. 1 to 3 controverted all the allegations and further averred that since the matter with regard to the election is already subjudice (now decided) before the Division Bench therefore, this writ petition is misconceived. It has also been averred that the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 authorizing the petitioner to act as President in the vacancy of the President has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.9.2009, therefore, the respondents were handicapped to issue any such orders. It was also alleged that the respondents No. 1 to 3 had been performing their duties to the best of their ability, sincerity and with integrity without causing any kind of prejudice to any body including the petitioner. However, they are duty bound to follow the directions/orders issued by the Court. They never stopped the petitioner to function as Vice President. So far as Annexure P-11 is concerned, no such guidelines were sought for or issued by the State. In fact the petitioner has incorrectly shown this letter having been issued from the office of the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 4 which is factually incorrect. The allegation of treating the Municipal Council, Panchkula as personal property and passing orders in arbitrary manner is specifically denied. Similar reply was furnished by the respondents No. 4 and 5. 6. Respondent No. 6 also controverted the pleadings of the petitioner by filing a separate written statement. It was denied that the election of the petitioner has not been challenged. The orders relied upon by the petitioner in this application have already been withdrawn by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana. It is further submitted that on 21.3.2011 in a similar meeting of the Municipal Council, Panchkula presided over by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in which the petitioner participated, he did not raise any objection regarding convening and presiding over the same, by the Deputy Commissioner. Now the petitioner is challenging the meeting held on 9.5.2011. It is further submitted that on 21.3.2011 in a similar meeting of the Municipal Council, Panchkula presided over by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner in which the petitioner participated, he did not raise any objection regarding convening and presiding over the same, by the Deputy Commissioner. Now the petitioner is challenging the meeting held on 9.5.2011. The issue sought to be adjudicated upon by the petitioner has already been decided by this Court in CWP No. 11377 of 2009 answering respondent. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. Section 35 of the, 1973, Bye-laws 36 and 44 of the 1981 and Rule XII.4 and X111.4 of the Code, 1930, refers to the powers of the President and the Vice President of the Haryana Municipal Council, which are reproduced as under:- “Section 35. Extraordinary powers of President or Vice President in case of emergency: (1) On the occurrence or threatened occurrence of any event involving or likely to involve extensive damage to property or danger to human life or grave inconvenience to the public, the President or the Executive Officer or, in the absence of the President or during the vacancy of his office, a Vice President, may, if in his opinion there is an emergency necessitating action before the matter can be considered by the committee, direct the execution of any such work or the doing of any such act which the committee is empowered to execute or do, as the emergency shall in his opinion justify or require, and may direct that the expense of executing such work or doing such act be paid from the municipal fund : Provided that every such action shall be [-] reported to the committee at its next meeting. (2) The President or Vice President or the Executive Officer shall not act under this section in contravention of any order of the committee. (3) The President or in his absence or during the vacancy of his office Vice-President may prohibit, until the matter has been considered by the committee, the doing of any act which is in his opinion undesirable in the public interest, provided that the act, is one which the committee has power to prohibit. (4) No direction given under this section shall be questioned in any Court on the ground that the case was not one of emergency. (4) No direction given under this section shall be questioned in any Court on the ground that the case was not one of emergency. Bye-Law 36 Powers of Vice-President [Section 31 (f)] - In the absence of the president the senior vice-president shall perform all the duties of the president and shall exercise the same powers. Bye-Law 44. President [Section 31(f)] - The President shall exercise general control over the work of Heads of Departments and shall pass orders on all matters that may be referred to him through the [Executive Officer or the Secretary.] Rule XII.4 [(1-A) All cheques shall be jointly signed by the President and Executive Officer of the Council. If the Executive Officer, appointed in Municipal Council is not functioning, the Secretary of the Municipal Council shall sign the cheques. In the case of Municipal Committees, cheques shall be jointly signed by the President and Secretary of the Committee. If the President is away, then in his place Vice President and Executive Officer/Secretary, as the case may be, shall jointly sign the cheques. In case both President and Executive Officer/Secretary are not present, then Vice-President and Accountant shall jointly sign the cheque. Provided that in the event of dissolution of the Committee, the cheques shall be signed by the officer appointed by the Government under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. Rule XIII.4 Accpetance of tenders - All tenders shall be opened by the Municipal Engi­neer at the time and place specified in the no­tice issued under the provisions of rule XIII.2 in the presence of the President or a Vice President of the committee, and the Municipal Engineer shall thereafter submit to the President or other officer or sub-com­mittee authorized by the committee in this behalf all the valid tenders received by that date, together with his recommendation as to which tender should be accepted and the President, other officer or Chairman of the sub- committee shall sign the tender or tenders which he or it considers should be accepted, in token of such acceptance. (2) In case no suitable rates are received by the Committee, the contract may be given by auction but this procedure should be resorted to only when the tenders called for are considered as too high in comparison with the current market rates.” 9. (2) In case no suitable rates are received by the Committee, the contract may be given by auction but this procedure should be resorted to only when the tenders called for are considered as too high in comparison with the current market rates.” 9. The prime circumstances which permit the Vice President to act in place of a President are as follows :- 1. in absence; 2. during his incapacity to attend to his duties; of 3. during the vacancy of his office. 10. Undisputed facts are that one V.K. Sood had filed an election petition challenging the election of Ravinder Kumar Rawal, dated 2.06.2008 which was allowed by the Election Tribunal vide judgment dated 4.05.2009. 11. Two separate appeals preferred by respondent No.6 and Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula were dismissed by the District Judge, Punchkula vide orders dated 8.06.2009. 12. Aggrieved against the said judgment Ravinder Kumar Rawal, respondent No.6, filed CWP No. 9227 of 2009 which came up for hearing on 16.11.2009 wherein learned Single Judge had issued notice of motion and notice regarding stay for 27.07.2009. Deputy Commissioner Panchkula and SDO (Civil), Panchkula also challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing separate CWP No. 9459 of 2009. 13. Learned Single Judge passed the order in CWP No. 9227 of 2009 on 14.07.2009, which is reproduced as under :- “Notice of Civil Misc application. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the Respondent/State. List on 22.7.2009. In the meantime, respondents will not proceed to fill up the vacancies of the President and Vice President. Objections be filed in the meantime.” 14. It is further noticed that during the pendency of the writ inn and after decision of the appeal by the District Judge, Panchkula, Deputy Commis­sioner, Panchkula wrote a letter dated 10.06.2009 to the Executive Officer, Panchkula, Municipal Committee, Panchkula/respondent No.5 to ensure compliance of the order dated 8.06.2009 in view of the provisions of Rule 91 of the Haryana Municipal Elections Rules, 1978 read with section 273(4) of 1973 and Bye-law 36 of Bye-laws 1981. 15. Said order was challenged by respondent No. 6 before or Urban Local Bodies, Haryana who stopped the process in view of the fact that the matter was subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court. 15. Said order was challenged by respondent No. 6 before or Urban Local Bodies, Haryana who stopped the process in view of the fact that the matter was subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court. Similarly, the Minister In-charge of the Local Bodies also took note of the representation of respondent No. 6 and observed that since the matter regarding election of the President Mu­nicipal Committee, Panchkula was pending before the High Court, his name has not been de-notified by the Government, therefore, respondent No.6 be allowed to continue as President. Order of the Minister, Local Bodies is dated 14.06.2009. It was also to be noticed that the Director, Urban Development Local Bodies, Haryana also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to withdraw his letter dated 10.06.2009. Letter for withdrawal of letter dated 10.06.2009 is dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P.9). This letter has also been issued by the Director, Urban Local Bodies on account of the fact that the matter was subjudice in the High Court. 16. The petitioner challenged the said letter dated 17.06.2009 in appeal before the Financial Com­missioner (Revenue) who vide order dated 3.07.2009 accepted the appeal. 17. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No.6 preferred writ petition challenging the order dated 3.07.2009 and challenging provision of 36 Bye-laws 1981. 18. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2009 (Ann. P.8) quashed the order dated 3.07.2009 passed by the Financial Com­missioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, vide which the petitioner was empowered to act as President in place of respondent No.6. Relevant observations made by the Division Bench are as under:- “29. It is apparent from the reading of letter dated 17.6.2009 (Annexure P.9) issued by respondent No. 3-Director, Urban Local Bodies to respondent No. 4-Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula that after examining the facts with regard to the matter being sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court in the pending writ petition wherein notice regarding stay had been issued, the matter was ordered to be put on hold till the receipt of the advice of the Advocate General, Haryana. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 exercising his powers under Section 247 of 1973 Act had passed a statutory order dated 26.6.2009 whereby the method/manner of payment of electricity bills, bills of diesel/petrol, payment of salary of officers/officials etc. and for all the development works was provided. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 exercising his powers under Section 247 of 1973 Act had passed a statutory order dated 26.6.2009 whereby the method/manner of payment of electricity bills, bills of diesel/petrol, payment of salary of officers/officials etc. and for all the development works was provided. It cannot be disputed that there is no appeal provided for any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his emergent powers under Section 247 of 1973 Act. It is also not in dispute that factually no challenge was made to order dated 26.6.2009 (Annexure P. 10). We find that however, the Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 3.7.2009 has totally negated the effect/impact of the statutory order passed by the competent authority dated 26.6.2009 (Annexure P. 10). 30. It is also not in dispute that as per the wording of Bye-law 36 of 1981 Bye-laws, in the absence of the President, it is the Senior Vice President, who shall perform all the duties and exercise the powers of the President. It is also an admitted case of the parties that re­spondent No. 6- Mr. B.B. Singal is the Vice President of M.C. Panchkula, who was elected as such along with the petitioner as President in the election held on 14.5.2008 involving an identical election process. It is a different matter that the election of the Vice President was not challenged. We are unable to fathom as to how the Vice President could be directed to exercise the powers in terms of Bye-law 36 of 1981 Bye-laws, which per­mits conferring such power only on a Senior Vice President.” 19. This judgment has not been challenged in any manner. 20. It may further be observed that after this judgment dated 23.09.2009, Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 6 was ac­cepted vide judgment dated 23.5.2011, vide which judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court as well as judgments passed by the courts below, were set aside and consequently, the election of respondent No.6 as President has been restored. 21. Thus, now when the President is already in the office fully competent to act, as such the petitioner has no cause of action to claim that he be allowed to work as President in his absence. Sec­ondly, respondent No.6 was never de- notified as President. 21. Thus, now when the President is already in the office fully competent to act, as such the petitioner has no cause of action to claim that he be allowed to work as President in his absence. Sec­ondly, respondent No.6 was never de- notified as President. The matter with regard to his election was still subjudice and the letter dated 3.07.2009 issued by the Government empowering the Vice President to act in the absence of respondent No.6 has been set aside, therefore, the office of the President cannot be said to have been vacated. Section 23 of the Act, 1973 reads as under: “Casual vacancies in office of president or vice president :- Upon the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of President or Vice President, a new president or Vice-president shall be elected or appointed in the manner provided under section 18” The Notification of the election of the president would be notified under section 24(1) of the Act 1973 which reads as under : “24. Notification of election and nominations- (1) Every election or nomination of a member and election of a president of the Municipal Committee or Municipal Council shall be notified in the Official Gazette and no mem­ber shall enter upon his duties until his election or nomination has been so notified and until, notwithstanding anything contained in the Oaths Act, 1969, he has taken or made, at a meeting of the Municipal Committee or Municipal Council an oath or affirmation of his allegiance to India and the Constitution of India……………..” If the election of the President had become otherwise invalid then there would be new appointment as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act 1973 but the fact remains that when the election of the President or Vice President is subjudice in the court then his office cannot be said to be vacant. 22. In the light of the Division Bench Judgment it dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P.8) which quashed the powers given by the Government to the petitioner to act as President in place of respondent No. 6, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. Resultantly, finding no merit in the writ petition the same is dismissed.