Vijay Kumar Saluja vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner herein is the president of Municipal Committee, Gharaunda. He is aggrieved by the decision taken at a special meeting of the Municipal Committee on August 1, 1991. A copy of this decision is at Annexure P. 1. The relevant portion reads as under:

Decision: This meeting started under the Chairmanship of Shri Mohinder Kumar, HCS, SDO (N), Karnal, at 4 p.m. and in the meeting all the 9 members expressed no confidence against Shri Vijay Kumar Saluja. All the 9 members were given ballot papers and they castee their votes. The ballot papers were counted and all the 9 votes were found against Shri Vijay Kumar Saluja, Therefore, since the members of the Municipal Committee are 14, out of which all the 9 members have expressed their view in favour of the no confidence motion against Shri Vijay Kumar Saluja. therefore, this is 2/3rd majority. The motion for removing the present President of the Municipal Committee. Gharaunda, Shri Vijay Kumar Saluja, from his office is hereby passed.

Sd/-

A perusal of the above order shows that the Municipal Com mittee has a total of 14 members. At the meeting held on August 1, 1991, only 9 members were present and all of them supporte the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. The Petiti+oner challenges it as being violative of the previsions of Section 21 of the Act.

The Respondents in spite of an opportunity have not filed any written statement. Mr. V.K. Jain, kame:'' Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the Respondents, has prayed for the grant of a short adjournment to enable him to file the reply. Keeping in view the fact that an opportunity had been granted earlier and that there was no controversy on facts, we decline the prayer of Mr. Jain.

Mr. Sanjeev Walia. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the action of the Respondents is contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. Jain has contended that 9, cut of a total of 14 members, having supported the motion of no confidence, the impugned action is legal and valid.

It if apt to extract the relezant portion of Section 21. "Section 21. Motion of no confidence against President or Vice-President,

(1) motion of no conficence against the Prasident or Vice President may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.

(2) The Deputy Commisioner or such other officer not below the rank or 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 meeting.

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

The relevant provision is, in fact, contained in Clause (3). It provides that the President shall be deemed to have vacated his office "if the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the members of the Committee..." (Emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the Committee has 14 members. Two-thirds of 14 is 9.33. Indisputably, only 9 persons were present at the meeting and had supported the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. 9 is less than 9.33. On a perusal of Section 21, we are of the opinion that the impugned proceedings had not been taken by the requisite number of persons. It was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 21(3).

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings at Annexure P. 1 are set aside. It is declared that the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner was not passed in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.