Vijay Kumar Sandoha vs State of Punjab and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 19883 of 2011) filed by appellant Vijay Kumar Sandoha, challenging the resolution dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passing ''No Confidence Motion'' against him by two-third of the members of Municipal Council, Maur, District Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ''the Municipal Council''), has been dismissed. Though there is delay of 5 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 1020-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the present case, the Municipal Council consists of 15 elected members and one ex-Officio member, i.e. MLA of the area. Elections of the Municipal Council were held on 30.6.2008 and one Sukhchain Singh, Municipal Councilor, was elected as President of the Municipal Council. Subsequently, on 30.6.2010, by passing ''No Confidence Motion'' against him, he was removed from the office of the President of the Municipal Council. Thereafter, on 30.12.2010, the appellant was elected as President of the Municipal Council.

On 16.9.2011, 12 members of the Municipal Council submitted a requisition for convening meeting of the Municipal Council to consider ''No Confidence Motion'' against the appellant. On that requisition, meeting of the Municipal Council was convened for 13.10.2011. On that day, 11 members (two-third of 16 members of the Municipal Council) attended the meeting. In the absence of the President (appellant) of the Municipal Council, Smt. Harbans Kaur, Municipal Councilor, was unanimously elected as Chairman to preside over the meeting, and under her Chairmanship, all the 11 members, who were present in the meeting, unanimously passed the resolution of ''No Confidence Motion'' against the appellant.

The appellant challenged the said resolution in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 25.1.2012.

Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant made three submissions. Firstly, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, who was in-charge of conducting the meeting, did not postpone the meeting, particularly when request of the appellant to postpone the meeting due to his ill health was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner and the same was communicated to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council. Secondly, in absence of the President of the Municipal Council, the meeting was to be presided over by the Vice President, as required by the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), who was present in the meeting, but the meeting was presided over by Harbans Kaur. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the said meeting stood vitiated. Thirdly, the requisite two-third majority for passing ''No Confidence Motion'' was not complete, as one of the Municipal Councilor, namely Rani Bansal, who voted in favour of the ''No Confidence Motion'' had already been disqualified. The learned Single Judge has rejected all these three submissions, while observing as under:

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."

Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant insisted on the last two submissions. As far as the second submission is concerned, Section 28 of the Act deals with the procedure of chairing the meeting of a Municipal Committee. It provides that every meeting of a committee shall be presided over by the President, if he is present. In absence of the President, or if the office of the President is vacant, or the President has been suspended u/s 22, the Senior Vice-President shall preside over the meeting. If there is no President or the Vice-President present, or they are under suspension u/s 22, then one of the members of the committee, who has been elected by the members present in the meeting, shall preside as Chairman. Provisions of section 28 of the Act only prescribe the procedure and do not prescribe for mandatory requirement. In the present case, undisputedly, all the members present in the meeting unanimously elected Smt. Harbans Kaur, Municipal Councilor, as Chairman to preside over the meeting. The contention of the appellant that the Vice-President was also present in the meeting and, therefore, it was not legal for the members to elect one of the members of the Municipal Council to preside over the meeting, has no force. It is not the case of the appellant that the Vice-President had insisted to preside over the meeting. He may not be interested to preside over that stormy meeting. But in our opinion, even if majority of the members elected one of the members to preside over that special meeting, that itself would not render the proceedings conducted in the said meeting as illegal on that count. It is also admitted position that in the written statement filed by the Vice-President, namely Harjinder Singh (respondent No. 7), he did not aver that he was not allowed to preside over the meeting or that he was interested to preside over the meeting. In the written statement, he supported the fact that the ''No Confidence Motion'' was rightly passed against the appellant by two-third of the members of the Municipal Council. The requirement of Section 22 of the Act is only that a President may be removed from his office in pursuance of a resolution requesting his removal passed by two third of the members of the committee.

Regarding the constituting of two-third majority, undisputedly, out of 16 members of the Municipal Council, 11 members including Rani Bansal, supported the ''No Confidence Motion'' against the appellant. It is an admitted fact that much before the holding of the meeting dated 13.10.2011 to consider the resolution regarding ''No Confidence Motion'' against the appellant, disqualification of Rani Bansal was stayed by the Government. Therefore, her participation in the said meeting and casting vote in favour of the ''No Confidence Motion'' against the appellant, cannot be said to be illegal. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the resolution dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passing ''No Confidence Motion'' against him.

No merit. Dismissed.