L.P.A No. 872 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A No. 872 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : August 9th, 2010 Balwinder Kaur, ...... Appellant v. Dalwinderjit Singh and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur has been directed to convene a meeting of Municipal Council, Qadian on 5.8.2010 in which no confidence motion against the appellant would be put to vote. The Municipal Council, Qadian consists of 15 members, 11 of whom (respondents No.1 to 11 herein) submitted a no confidence motion against the appellant on 5.4.2010. However, the appellant refused to call a meeting even after another representation was moved in this regard. At that L.P.A No. 872 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: stage, respondents No.1 to 11 filed the writ petition (out of which the instant appeal has arisen) praying that the appellant as well as respondents No.12 to 14 be directed to call a meeting. It was further prayed that not only was no confidence motion not considered, even the mandatory monthly meetings had not been called, since the appellant wanted to sidestep the no confidence motion. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Court cannot become a mute spectator in the face of such brazen and obdurate defiance of democratic norms. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the writ petition was not maintainable since the requisition had already lapsed and also since the private respondents had an alternative remedy of requisitioning an extra ordinary general meeting and, thus, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. A person who is himself guilty of violating the mandate of law cannot claim protection of the law to thwart the essential democratic principles governing the post of President of a Municipal Council. It may be noticed that only 10 members (out of 15) were required to carry the no confidence motion. In the present case, as noticed above, 11 elected members had moved the no confidence motion. Instead of facing and defeating the motion on the floor of the House, the appellant chose to stone-wall it. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has not transgressed either the constitutional mandate or judicial proprietary in giving a direction to respondent No.2. Even otherwise, in an appeal an inequitous appellant cannot seek equity and even if the pleas of the L.P.A No. 872 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: appellant were accepted, it is not necessary to set aside the learned Single Judge's judgment. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980)2 SCC 437, wherein it was held as follows :- “ Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects : Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest.....” Consequently, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( MUKUL MUDGAL ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 9th, 2010. JUDGE `kk'