IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1409 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 12, 2009 Smt. Santosh Rani .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing Order dated 19.1.2009 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of President, Municipal Committee, Kalanwali, District Sirsa, on bringing No Confidence Motion. It has been brought out that the petitioner had made a demand for voting by secret ballot while considering the No Confidence Motion under Section 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978. Learned counsel for the respondent-State says that although apprehension was shown by the petitioner i.e. demand of voting by secret ballot would not be allowed, however, it transpires that the CWP No.1409 of 2009 [2] request for voting by secret ballot was made on 19.1.2009 itself. The No Confidence Motion was to be considered on 19.1.2009 and on the same day, No Confidence Motion had been passed against the petitioner. In view of the facts that have come on the record viz. that No Confidence Motion was passed on 19.1.2009 itself and the request also was made on the same day, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another contention that although 1/3rd of the members were required to sign the requisition, however, only three members have signed the requisition for No Confidence Motion. I find that the relevant document to establish the plea has not been placed on record. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn the attention of the Court towards the original record that has been brought by the concerned official from the Municipal Committee, Kalanwali. It transpires that on 31.12.2008, as many as 13 members have signed the requisition. In view of the above facts that have been brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the respondent-State, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 12, 2009 JUDGE avin