JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No.15998 of 2011 For the reasons recorded, application is allowed. Persons mentioned in para No.5 are impleaded as respondents No.6 to 16. CWP No.19883 of 2011 (O&M) 2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passing No Confidence motion against the petitioner. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 16 has taken a preliminary objection that under the Punjab Municipal Act the resolution has to be sent to the Government who may then issue notice to the petitioner and all the pleas which the petitioner has taken in this petition can well be taken by him in response to the said notice and therefore for this reason the present petition is premature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has countered by arguing that in any case under the provision of Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act the petitioner is deemed to be under suspension and therefore in any case the petitioner can challenge the suspension. To support his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four arguments. The first argument is that the petitioner had requested for postponement of the meeting because he was seriously ill and the Deputy Commissioner had accepted the request yet the meeting went ahead and the impugned resolution was passed. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Punjab Municipal Act, in the absence of the President only the Vice President can preside over the meeting and in the present case the meeting had been presided over by Harbans Kaur though the Vice President was also present. The third argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 02.09.2011 the House had passed a resolution noticing that Rani Bansal had incurred disqualification by non attendance and had directed the executive officer to take action against her. Learned counsel states that in the circumstances she could not vote in favour of this No Confidence being ineligible and if her vote is discounted the numbers don’t add up to requisite 2/3rd majority. 5. As regards the first argument it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had fixed the meeting for 13.10.2011 and his incapacity would not give rise to a right to him to demand postponement. 5. As regards the first argument it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had fixed the meeting for 13.10.2011 and his incapacity would not give rise to a right to him to demand postponement. Secondly, as regards the argument that the meeting could be presided over by the Vice President, in my considered opinion, it is only the Vice President who can make a grouse on this account. As regards the third argument it must be noticed that when a member is proceeded against for absence there is no provision for automatic suspension as there is in the case of an unseated President. It is also not disputed that the said resolution has already been stayed by the Government and that order has not been challenged till date. Thus even if that resolution had not been stayed, till such time as Rani Bansal was duly removed and denotified as member she would be deemed to be a member in view of the fact that there is no provision for automatic suspension. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ------------