AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has challenged notice dated 12.7.2013 and resolution dated 29.7.2013 regarding ''No Confidence
Motion'' passed against her removing her from the Office of the President of Zila Parishad, Gurgaon, The Zila Parishad is constituted u/s 117 of
The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ''the Act''). Zila Parishad, Gurgaon has ten wards in which elections were held in the year 2010.
As per Section 118 of the Act, every Zila Parishad is comprised of Members directly elected from Wards in a District, Chairman of all Panchayat
Samitis within the district, ex-officio members, the members of the House of People, Haryana Legislative Assembly whose consistency lie within
the district or part thereof, ex-officio member and a President and Vice-President who are to be elected by and amongst the elected Members of
the Zila Parishad. All ex-officio members of the Zila Parishad have right to vote in the meetings of the Zila Parishad except for election and removal
of the President or the Vice-President. As per Section 121 of the Act, on the constitution of a Zila Parishad u/s 117, first meeting is called for the
election of President and the Vice-President by and from amongst its elected members in the manner prescribed, by the prescribed authority. The
term of office of President and Vice-President is for five years unless removed as prescribed u/s 123 of the Act by way of resolution passed by
two third members of the elected members of the Zila Parishad at a meeting convened by prescribed authority in the manner prescribed.
Seven Members of the Zila Parishad moved application to respondent No. 2 (The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon) on 1.7.2013 for convening
a meeting to consider ''No Confidence Motion'' against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, while exercising his powers under Rule 10 of the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 (for short, ''the Rules'') issued notice to all the ten elected members for convening a meeting to consider
application for ''No Confidence Motion'' on 29.7.2013 at 12:30 P.M. in his Office.
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 12.7.2013 by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 16571 of 2013 but it was withdrawn on 1.8.2013
because by that time, the ''No Confidence Motion'' was passed against the petitioner on 29.7.2013. Hence, in the present writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged ''No Confidence Motion'' removing her from the post of President of the Zila Parishad, Gurgaon.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that besides ten elected members, there are eight ex-officio members. Notice of the meeting has been
given only to the elected members whereas Member has been defined u/s 2(xxxv) which means a member of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as
the case may be. Therefore, notice of ''No Confidence Motion'' meeting should have been served upon the ex-officio members as well. It is further
submitted that as per Section 128, the Quorum of the special meeting in which the ''No Confidence Motion'' was considered is one-half of the
number of members whereas the resolution has been passed by a strength of seven members out of eighteen members which should have been
nine members for that purpose. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1964 (P&H)(2) ILR 358.
Counsel for the respondents have submitted that no notice was required to be given to the ex-officio members of the Zila Parishad because they
had no right to vote either in the election of the President in view of Section 121 of the Act or in the meeting considering ''No Confidence Motion''
against the President or Vice President in view of Section 123 of the Act. It is further submitted that quorum prescribed u/s 128(b) is relating to the
conduct of business provided under Chapter XIV and is not relatable to the quorum required for passing ''No Confidence Motion'' which itself is
given in Section 123(2) of the Act. It is also submitted that the meeting convened u/s 127 of the Act is fixed by the President or in his absence by
the Vice President who would issue notice of such meeting specifying the date, time, place and business to be transacted there which is to be
dispatched to every member of the Zila Parishad which does not relate to the meeting which is to be fixed by the prescribed authority in the
prescribed manner as provided in Section 123(2) of the Act. It is also submitted that the ''prescribed authority'' and the ''prescribed manner'' for
the purpose of ''No Confidence Motion'' is provided under Rule 10 of the Rules in which the prescribed authority is the Deputy Commissioner. It
is lastly argued that the definition of Member as projected by counsel for the petitioner would not apply because Section 2 starts with the words
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, which would mean that the definition has to be read in the context of the provision which is in
question. He has relied upon decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramesh Mehta Vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and Others, , P.T.
Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir and Others, and has also relied upon decision in the case of Smt. Shamshad Khatun Vs. State of Bihar and Others .
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts are not much in dispute as there are ten elected members of the
Zila Parishad, Gurgaon and the others are the ex-officio members. Seven elected members applied on 1.7.2013 to respondent No. 2 for
convening a meeting to consider ''No Confidence Motion'' against the petitioner, on the basis of which, notice dated 12.7.2013 was served and
meeting was held on 29.7.2013 in which resolution was passed by two third majority of the elected members, who were present in the meeting.
Both the learned counsel for the parties have referred to various provisions of the Act during the course of their arguments which are relevant to
be mentioned here.
Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
2(xxxv) ""member"" means a member of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be;
Composition of Zila Parishad.- (1) Every Zila Parishad shall consist of
(a) the Members directly elected from the wards in a district u/s 119;
(b) the Chairman of all Panchayat Samitis within the district, ex-officio members;
(c) the members of the House of People, Haryana Legislative Assembly whose consistency lie within the district or part thereof, ex-officio
member; and
(d) a President and Vice-President who shall be elected by and amongst the elected Members of the Zila Parishad.
(2) All ex-officio members of the Zila Parishad shall have right to vote in the meetings of the Zila Parishad except for election and removal of the
President or the Vice-President.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, but subject to any general or special order of the Government, where two-third or more of
the total number of Members of any Zila Parishad require to be elected have been elected, the Zila Parishad shall be deemed to have been duly
constituted under this Act.
First meeting of Zila Parishad and election of President and Vice-President.
(1) On the Constitution of a Zila Parishad u/s 117, there shall be called the first meeting for the election of President and the Vice-President by and
from amongst its elected members in the manner prescribed, by the prescribed authority.
(2) The meeting shall be held on such day within four weeks from the date on which the names of elected members are published by the State
Election Commissioner, or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf.
Term of office of President and Vice-President and Motion of no-confidence against President and Vice-President.
(1) The term of the office of President and Vice-President of a Zila Parishad shall be five years unless sooner removed.
(2) If by a resolution passed against the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, two-third of the total number of its elected members of
the Zila Parishad decide at a meeting convened by the prescribed authority in the manner prescribed, that the President or Vice-President, as the
case may be, shall vacate the office and in such case the Zila Parishad shall elect the new President or Vice-President as the case may be, as
specified in section 121 of this Act.
Provided that no such meeting shall be convened before the expiry of one year from the date on which the election of the President or the Vice-
President, as the case may be, was notified, and after the expiry of such period, whenever such a meeting is convened during his term of office and
the proposal for vacating the office fails, no further meeting shall at any time thereafter be convened for considering a similar proposal against the
President or Vice-President unless a period of at least one year intervenes between the last failure and the date on which such further meeting is
convened.
Meetings.- A Zila Parishad shall ordinarily meet at least six times in each year of the transaction of its business and not more than two months
shall be allowed to lapse between any two successive meetings.
Convening of ordinary of special meetings.-
(1) A meeting of a Zila Parishad shall be either ordinary or special.
(2) Any business may be transacted at an ordinary meeting unless required by this Act or the rules made thereunder to be transacted at a special
meeting. The date of every meeting, except the meeting referred to in sections 121 and 123 shall be fixed by the President, or, in his absence by
the Vice-President. Notice of every meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof and the business to be transacted thereat shall be
despatched to every member of the Zila Parishad and exhibited at the office of the Zila Parishad not less than ten days before an ordinary meeting
and four days before a special meeting.
Quorum.-For the transaction of business at a meeting of a Zila Parishad, the quorum shall be-
(a) if it is an ordinary meeting, one-third; and
(b) if it is special meeting, one-half, of the number of members actually serving for the time being.
Rule 10 of the Rules is reproduced as under:-
10 . No confidence motion against [--] Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, {Section [--] 62 and 123}.-
(1) For purposes of [section 123] [-------] Deputy Commissioner [-------] shall be the prescribed authority.
(2) The notice of meeting for consideration motion of no confidence shall be issued atleast seven days before the date fixed for the meeting,
intimating the date, time and place of meeting by proclamation by beat of drum, in the Sabha (areas) concerned and by affixing a copy of same on
the notice [boards of the offices of concerned Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti(s) and Zila Parishad] and at other conspicuous places in the
village.
[The] notice shall also be issued to all the members by registered (A.D.) Post at their ordinary place of resident and also by affixing a copy of the
same at the notice board of Office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
and through any other expedient manner deemed proper.
(3) The presiding authority of the meeting, referred to in sub-rule (2), shall be [--] Additional Deputy Commissioner in case of Vice-Chairman and
Chairman and the Deputy Commissioner in case of Vice-President and President.
(4) The voting in the meeting shall be by the secret ballot for which the presiding authority shall make the necessary arrangements. The presiding
authority shall also record the proceeding of the meeting setting forth therein-
(a) the names of [--] members who gave the requisition and the date thereof:
(b) the dates on which the notice was issued and served under sub-rule (2);
(c) date, time and place of the meeting;
(d) number of votes polled against the motion;
(e) number of votes polled in favour of motion; and
(f) result.
(5) If within half-an-hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice shall lapse.
The first issue raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the notice required under Rule 10(2) has not been issued to all the members. According
to him, the members defined u/s 2(xxxv) means the members of the Zila Parishad which is provided u/s 118 of the Act. In this regard, it would be
pertinent to mention that in Section 118(2), it is provided that all ex-officio members of the Zila Parishad shall have right to vote in the meetings of
the Zila Parishad except for election and removal of the President or the Vice-President. The election of the President or Vice-President is
provided in Section 121 of the Act specifically laying down that after the constitution of Zila Parishad u/s 117, first meeting shall be called for the
election of President or Vice-President by and from amongst the elected members. It does not allow participation of the ex-officio members at the
time of the election. Similarly, at the time of removal of the President or Vice President by way of No Confidence Motion, resolution in terms of
Section 123(2), requires majority of two third of the total number of elected members. Thus, there is no role of ex-officio members either in the
election or in removal of the President or Vice-President of Zila Parishad and for that matter, the petitioner cannot rely solely upon the definition of
members to submit that members would mean all the members. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the opening sentence of Section 2 of
the Act which provides that ''In this Act, unless the context otherwise require"" which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Ra-
mesh Mehta (supra) in the following manner:-
The position, which, therefore, emerges is that both before and after 1994, the no-confidence motion had to be voted upon by members who
were entitled to vote. As stated above, Section 3 of the Act begins with the words ""unless the context otherwise requires"". Section 3(36) defines
the expression ""whole number''''/""total number"" to mean total number of members holding the office at the given time. The said expression ""whole
number of members"" finds place in Rule 3(5), (8) and (9). Hence, we have to read Rule 3(5), (8) and (9) in the context of the provisions of the
said Act. As stated above, the basis scheme of the Act prior to 1994 and post 1994 has remained unchanged. In both cases, the legislative intent
has been that the office of the chairman/vice-chairman shall stand vacated on passing of no-confidence motion by the members of the board who
are entitled to vote. Hence, in our view, the expression ""whole number"" or ""total number"" connotes the ""total number of elected members.
xx xx xx xx xx xx
One of the Constituency in question had merely 23 members out of whom two were nominated members and one was the member of the
Legislative Assembly. 15 votes were cast in favour of the No Confidence Motion, still the appellant was not found liable to be removed having
regard to the definition of ''total number of votes''.
The ''whole number of votes'' whether should, in our opinion, be read as total number of elected votes or total number of members as it
patently appears from the definition: is the question.
It is accepted that the Rules have not been altered despite the fact that amendments have been carried out in the Municipalities Act in the year
1994. A, members who were not elected members under the unamended provisions were treated as elected members. Their rights were at par
with them. The very fact that the Constitution made a difference between an elected member and nominated member in the matter of election and
removal of a Chairman is suggestive of the fact that now a new interpretation is called for. Nominated members are persons with special
knowledge in the subject. They are nominated so that they may render their advices properly to the members of the Board which would enable it
to run the municipal affairs efficiently. They remain as member of the Board irrespective of the fact that as to who is the person occupying the post
or his political affinity. He is not concerned with election. He does not take part in it. A fortiori he has also not been assigned any role to play as
regard removal of the Chairman or Vice Chairman.
The interpretation clause in the said Act is prefaced with the expression ""unless otherwise requires by the context"".
A definition is not to be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of the phrase which would define it. It should not be vague or
ambiguous. The definition of words must be given a meaningful application; where the context makes the definition given in the interpretation clause
inapplicable, the same meaning cannot be assigned.
Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) is concerned, it is not applicable because in that
case, Section 18 of the Act was interpreted which only talks of the resolution to be passed by not less than two third of total number of the
members of the Panchayat Samiti whereas in the present case, Section 123 specifically talks of two third of the elected members of the Zila
Parishad. Similarly, decision in the case of Raees Ahmad''s case (supra) is also not applicable because in that case also, the majority was to be
seen. No Confidence Motion was to be passed by two third of the majority of the total number of members. It was thus held that it would include
nominated members but here, for the sake of repetition, Section 123 specifically talks of two third of the elected members. Thus, in my considered
opinion, both the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. The second issue raised by the petitioner is regarding
quorum as provided in Section 128 of the Act. He has tried to convey that there were 18 members of the Parishad out of which ten were elected
but the quorum as per Section 128(b) in case of special meeting was one-half of the members actually serving for the time being would mean that
out of 18 members, 9 members should have been there for the purpose of passing the resolution. However, I am not in agreement with this
argument because Section 128 is part of Chapter XIV of the Act which deals with the conduct of business. Section 126 provides that the Zila
Parishad shall ordinarily meet at least six times in a year for transacting its business and not more than two months shall be allowed to lapse
between any two successive meetings. Such meetings could be either ordinary or special. Any business can be transacted at any ordinary meeting
unless required by the Act or the Rules made thereunder to be transacted at a special meeting. The date of ever/meeting except the meeting
provided u/s 121 and 123 of the Act which deals with election of the President or the Vice President of the Zila Parishad or their removal is to be
fixed by the President or in his absence by the Vice President. In that meeting, for the purpose of transacting the business, notice has to be given to
every member of the Zila Parishad and the quorum for the purpose of ordinary meeting has to be fixed as one third and for the special meeting as
one-half. Thus, there is mark difference between the meeting convened for the purpose of election and removal of the President, Vice President
and transacting the business of the Zila Parishad which is specifically extracted in Section 127 of the Act because in the meeting to be convened
under Sections 121 and 123 of the Act, the word used by the legislature is of the elected members whereas in the meeting u/s 127, the words used
by the legislature is of every member. Thus, the quorum which is required for resolution to be passed in the meeting convened for considering ''No
Confidence Motion'' is two third of the total number of elected members and not half of the members of the Zila Parishad. Hence, the second
issued raised by the petitioner is also decided against him.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.