Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 830 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar Malhotra v. State of Punjab

2013-07-08

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The short question involved in this writ petition is “whether a special meeting is to be convened within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition by the President or the Vice President or from the date when the requisition is received in the office of the Municipal Council?” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is elected President of a 15 members Municipal Council, Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar. On 28.03.2013, as many as 12 Municipal Councillors submitted requisition vide diary no.100 in the office of the Municipal Council for calling a special meeting within 14 days to consider no confidence motion against the President. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Council served a notice on the same date, i.e. 28.03.2013, upon the President/petitioner stating therein that “in connection with the above said subject, it is requested that the 12 Municipal Councillors have given requisition against you for No Confidence, therefore, in this connection calling the meeting requisition is hereby sent along with this letter. You are requested to call the meeting”. The letter sent by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council was admittedly received by the petitioner on 01.04.2013, in response to which he wrote to him that the matter regarding election and holding the office of President of Municipal Council is already subject matter of decision of CWP No.20597 of 2008, therefore, the meeting is uncalled for and would be considered to be an interference in the judicial procedure. 3. Thereafter, on 11.04.2013, the 12 members of the Municipal Council, who were interested in the no confidence motion meeting, called upon the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council to hold the special meeting immediately because the President of the Municipal Council has failed to call the special meeting within the stipulated period. Apropos, a notice was issued by the Executive Officer along with request of the 12 Municipal Councillors dated 28.03.2013 to all the Municipal Councillors for the special meeting of no confidence motion to be convened on 15.04.2013 at 11.00 a.m. in the Municipal Council office. Apropos, a notice was issued by the Executive Officer along with request of the 12 Municipal Councillors dated 28.03.2013 to all the Municipal Councillors for the special meeting of no confidence motion to be convened on 15.04.2013 at 11.00 a.m. in the Municipal Council office. This notice dated 11.04.2013 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition on the ground that it violates Section 25(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which reads as under:- “(3) If the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, fails to call a meeting of the committee within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of requisition, the members who had signed the requisition may convene a meeting of the committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the committee within a period of thirty days of the making of such requisition and notwithstanding anything contained in this Act such meeting shall be deemed to be a validly convened meeting. Provided that no business other than that specified in the requisition shall be transacted in such meeting and the quorum for such a meeting shall be as provided for a special meeting under sub-section (1) of Section-27.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the special meeting was to be called by the President, who had received the requisition on 01.04.2013, within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition and if he fails to call the meeting within 14 days, the members, who had signed the requisition, may convene a meeting in accordance with the bye-laws of the Committee, within a period of 30 days of making such application, but in the present case the meeting has been convened even before the expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition by the President/petitioner. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the requisition was received in the office of Municipal Council on 28.03.2013 and the special meeting has been rightly called on 11.04.2013 as the President of the Municipal Council had failed to call the meeting within 14 days from the date of receipt of the requisition. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the requisition was received in the office of Municipal Council on 28.03.2013 and the special meeting has been rightly called on 11.04.2013 as the President of the Municipal Council had failed to call the meeting within 14 days from the date of receipt of the requisition. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Act is directory and not mandatory and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the notice was served for a period less than 14 days. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The question which is involved in this writ petition has already been framed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. The question is only with regard to the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Act as to whether the meeting is to be called by the President or by the Vice President or the Municipal Councillors. 8. It emanates from the facts that the meeting has to be called by the President, against whom no confidence motion is sought to be brought, because after submission of requisition, vide diary no.100 dated 28.03.2013, with the Municipal Council, the Executive Officer himself asked the President through a letter dated 28.03.2013 and requested him to call the meeting. Besides this, Section 25(3) of the Act unambiguously suggests that the special meeting has to be called by the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, and if the President or the Vice President fail to call it within 14 days from the date of receipt of the requisition, then the members, who had sent the requisition, may convene the meeting of the Committee within a period of 30 days of the making of such requisition and for that matter the meeting is not required to be called by the President or the Vice President. The purpose for granting period of 14 days from the date of receipt of the requisition to the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, is essential when it is a matter regarding convening of a special meeting pertaining to a no confidence motion. The purpose for granting period of 14 days from the date of receipt of the requisition to the President or the Vice President, as the case may be, is essential when it is a matter regarding convening of a special meeting pertaining to a no confidence motion. During this period, the President or the Vice President may try to regain his lost confidence in the members who have, for some reason or the other, drifted away from him and for that matter if the President or the Vice President do not get a clear period of 14 days, his interest would be seriously prejudiced. 9. Thus, I do not agree with the argument raised by counsel for the respondents that a period of 14 days is not mandatory or the sending a notice of requisition of meeting is only directory as the special meeting would have a virtual effect of removal of the President from the post. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the cases of Jnanendra Nath Pramanick v. The District Magistrate, Nadia and others, AIR 1978 CALCUTTA 324, Gian Singh v. The District Magistrate, Bijnor and others, AIR 1975 ALLAHABAD 315 and K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 330 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question posed in the beginning of the judgment is answered in affirmative to the effect that period of 14 days is to be counted from the date of receipt of requisition for convening a special meeting by the President or the Vice President and not from the date the requisition is received in the office of the Municipal Council, as the special meeting for no confidence motion is to be called by the President or the Vice President and not by the Municipal Council. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned notice dated 11.04.2013 is quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------