Poonam vs State of Haryana and Others

N.C. Jain and B. Rai, JJ.—The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the proceedings of the Meeting of the Municipal Committee Pataudi, District Gurgaon, (Annexure P-3) which read as under :-

"Proceedings of the meeting held on 15.12.1995 at Johan Hall, Gurgaon.

Resolution of The Committee :

Today on 15.12.1995 at 10.00 A.M. a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sh. Mahender Kumar, H.C.S. S.D.O. (Civil), Gurgaon, was held in Johan Hall, Gurgaon. The proceedings for no-confidence against SmtPoonam Devi was started. Firstly all the present members of the Municipal Committee were apprised of the rules and regulations in the matter of the no-confidence resolution. Thereafter secret polling was held and present elected members participated therein. For counting ballot boxes were scrutinised and found in order. After the counting it was found that all the 12 elected members polled in favour of no-confidence resolution. Not a single vote was polled in favour of Smt. Poonam Devi. Thus, there were 92% votes polled in favour of the no-confidence resolution which constituted more than 2/3rd majority as per the rules. Therefore, a no-confidence motion has been passed against Smt. Poonam Devi President of the Municipal Committee Pataudi, District Gurgaon. A copy of the resolution is sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon.

Sd/-

S.D.O. (Civil)

Gurgaon."

It is clear from the aforementioned proceedings that a vote of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner by all the 12 elected members.

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that his clientess belonged to reserved category and, therefore, she could not be ousted from the office on the ground that she lost the confidence of the members. The precise argument of Mr. Dhankar is that since the petitioner is the only Scheduled Caste member of the Municipal Committee and having been made as the President in that capacity could only be removed u/s 22 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State Government and not on the basis of vote of no-confidence. The reference was made by the counsel to the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, which read as under :

"21. Motion of no-confidence against president or vice-president.--(1) A motion of no-confidence against the president or vice-president may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.

(2) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of an extra Assistant Commissioner, as the Deputy Commissioner may authorise, shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub-section (1) in the manner laid down in the rules and shall preside at such meetings.

(3) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the members of the committee the president or vice-president as the case may be shall be deemed to have vacated his office.

(4) If a no-confidence motion is passed against the president and the vice-president simultaneously or otherwise the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of the area in which the municipality is situated or any other officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Deputy Commissioner shall henceforth exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the president till the election of a president is notified or a vice-president is elected.

(5) A meeting referred to in sub-section (2) shall be presided over by the Deputy Commissioner or the officer authorised by him, but neither he nor such officer shall have the right to vote at such meeting.

Removal of president or vice-president.--The State Government may at any time, by notification, remove a president or vice-president from his office, on the ground of abuse of his power or of habitual failure to perform his duties.

Provided that no removal of the President or Vice-President shall be notified unless the matter has been enquired into by an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner appointed by the State Government and the President or the Vice-President as the case may be has given a'' reasonable opportunity of being heard."

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced at the bar, but are unable to accept the same. Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, in our considered view, are independent provisions dealing with different situations. In case the President or Vice-President loses the confidence of the House he or she can be removed by initiating a motion of no-confidence in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The members of the Committee have resorted to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and exercised their right available under the aforementioned provisions. The State Government has also been given the right to remove a President or Vice-President on the ground of abuse of his/her power or of habitual failure to perform his/her duties. Section 22 vests the power of removal in the State Government only on two grounds. In the first instance (a) President or Vice-President can be removed on the ground that he/she has abused his/her power and (b) he/she can be removed on the ground that he/she has failed to perform his/her duties habitually. The proviso contemplates an enquiry to be conducted by an officer, not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner appointed by the State Government after the grant of reasonable opportunity to the President or Vice-President of being heard. The making of the provision of removal u/s 22 of the Act does not mean that the members of the Committee do not have the power to pass a vote of no-confidence. If the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, it would necessarily mean that Section 21 of the Act will have to be effaced from the statute book. In other words, Section 21 of the Act will have to be either declared as ultra vires or the same will have to be held to be redundant for which no foundation has been laid in the petition.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner is the only member of the Municipal Committee belonging to reserved category and a candidate belonging to reserved category has to became the President, His clientess cannot be thrown out of the office by a vote of no-confidence. The argument is meritless. If there is no other candidate belonging to reserved category and it is mandatory that a candidate belonging to reserved category can become the President of Municipal Committee, Pataudi, some other person belonging to reserved category would be co-opted/elected. The absence of any other member in Municipal Committee, Pataudi, belonging to reserved category would not mean that the petitioner is entitled to continue as the President even if she has lost the confidence of the House. There is nothing in Section 21 of the Act from where it could be concluded that a candidate belonging to reserved category/xrald not be voted out of the office by a vote of no-confidence.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.