IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.4859 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.3.2009 Renu Bala and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri S.S.Salar,Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioners, who are elected Counsellors of Municipal Council, Malerkotla, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of this petition under Articles226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing memorandum dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P4) vide which the meeting of the Council scheduled for 28.3.2009 has been shown to have been adjourned for an indefinite period on administrative grounds. It has been averred in the petition that an ordinary meeting of the Council was convened on 3.3.2009 at 11.00 A.M., but a circular was received that the meeting would be held at 3.00 P.M. instead of 11.00 A.M. It has further been averred that the meeting was held at 3.00 P.M. And all C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -2- .... the Counsellors, who were having allegience to a particular party and were fifteen in number, appeared. The majority group, who had allegience to another party and are sixteen in number, did not appear. Since the quorum was complete, all the fifteen members present, insisted on the meeting which started, but the President of the Council refused to record the proceedings and subsequently left the venue. In the wake of this, the petitioners along with thirteen Counsellors recorded the proceedings by going ahead with the meeting and the minutes were sent to the Deputy Director, Local Government Department, Patiala vide letter dated 4.3.2009 which were received in the latter's office on 6.3.2009. The petitioners then received a note from the President of the Council circulated on 24.3.2009 stating therein that a meeting of the Council is to be held on 28.3.2009 which meeting was in furtherance of the adjournment of the earlier meeting dated 3.3.2009 scheduled at 3.00 P.M. The petitioners have impugned this decision of the President to hold the meeting on 28.3.2009 as it is their grievance that on 3.3.2009 at 3.00 P.M. when the meeting was scheduled, fifteen members had gone ahead with the meeting in the absence of other sixteen members and since the quorum was complete, the effect of that meeting by holding a meeting now on 28.3.2009 purportedly to be the same meeting which was adjourned on 3.3.2009, is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the meeting was scheduled on 3.3.2009 at 3.00 P.M. And the quorum of fifteen Counsellors was complete, the petitioners and other thirteen members C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -3- .... present were very well competent to hold the meeting and go ahead with the agenda and, therefore, this meeting ought to have been considered to be concluded and the President had no power to adjourn the same to 28.3.2009 and make an attempt to undo what has already been transacted in the meeting dated 3.3.2009. He further contended that this action of the President of the Council is violative of the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act,1911 (for shot, `the Act'). To support his contentions, he placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta Versus State of Punjab, 2001(3) P.L.R. 198. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the judgment relied upon by him. Section 27 of the act reads as under:- “27. Quorum- (1) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a special meeting of a committee shall be one-half of the number of the committee actually serving at the time, but shall not be less than three. (2) The quorum necessary for transaction of business at an ordinary meeting of a committee shall be such number or proportion of the members of the committee as may, from time to time, be fixed by the bye-laws, but shall not be less than three: Provided that, if at any ordinary or special meeting of a committee a quorum is not present, the chairman shall adjourn C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -4- .... the meeting to such other day as he may think fit, and the business which would have been brought before the original meeting if there had been a quorum present shall be brought before, and transacted at, the adjourned meeting, whether there be a quorum present there or not.” A perusal of the afore-quoted provision of law contemplates two kinds of meeting, i.e., ordinary meeting and special meeting. Proviso to sub-section (2) which relates to an ordinary meeting, further lays down that if at any ordinary or special meeting of a committee, a quorum is not present, the chairman shall adjourn the meeting to such other day as he may think fit, and the business which would have been brought before the original meeting if there had been a quorum present shall be brought before, and transacted at, the adjourned meeting, whether there be a quorum present there or not. In Ashok Kumar Gupta's case (supra), the Division Bench held that a special meeting having complete quorum once fixed with an agenda cannot be postponed merely because President or Vice President has not come present and if once quorum is complete, the agenda can be transacted. This judgment further shows that the Division Bench arrived at the aforesaid decision after placing reliance on Shri Chandu Ram and others Versus The state of Punjab and others, 1986 R.R.R. 123 (P&H); Ram Singh, President Nagar Panchayat, Cheema Versus State of Punjab and others, 1998(1) P.L.J. 246; Sarwan Singh, Ex-President, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Versus State of Punjab and others, 1994 P.L.J. 317; Kala Ram, Member Municipal C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -5- .... Committee, Kotkapura Versus State of Punjab and others, 1994 P.L.J. 723 and a judgment dated 30.1.2001 passed in C.W.P.No.6721 of 1999 – Sadhu Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others. These judgments have been discussed in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Ashok Kumar Gupta's case (supra), which is reproduced below:- “13. It is also conceded in the written statement by respondentno.1 in para 13(ii) wherein it is stated that “it is, however, submitted that respondent no.4 has no right to postpone the requisite meeting under Section 27 of the Punjab Municipal Act,1911 (as amended by Act 11 of 1994).” The cancellation of the special meeting dated 21.8.2000 was, thus, beyond the scope of the powers of the Vice President. It is not the case of the respondents,in any manner, that in the meeting held unde the chairmanship of the junior Vice President – Chander Mohan Handa, the quorum was not complete. If the cancellation of the election meeting was illegal and void ab initio, the election meeting held on the date fixed in the presence of authorised observer and with requisite quorum cannot be assailed in any manner. A requisitioned special meeting of the Municipal Council cannot be postponed otherwise since there is no express provision in the Act or Punjab Municipal Election Rules,1994. In Shri Chandu Ram and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1986 RRR 123 (P&H) : 1985 PLJ 492, this Court has held that once the process C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -6- .... of election is set in motion, it should be allowed to complete its course. The State Government has no power to adjourn the meeting called for election of the President, since Section 2236 of the Act does not expressly or impliedly empower the State Government to postpone the election meeting. A similar view has been taken in Ram Singh, President, Nagar Panchayat, Cheema v. State of Punjab and others, 1998(1) PLJ 246 : 1998 (1) RCR (Civil) 105 (P&H) (DB) wherein a special meeting was convened for considering the no-confidence motion against the President. The Deputy Commissioner directed the postponement of the meeting. It was held that Section 232 of the Act under which the Deputy Commissioner can invoke his power to suspend the resolution can not take within its ambit the right of the members of the Committee to meet and decide. Further, a similar view has been taken in Sarwan Singh, Ex- President, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1994 PLJ 317 : 1994(2) RRR 461(P&H). In Kala Ram, Member Municipal Committee, Kotkapura v. State of Punjab and others, 1994 PLJ 723 : 1995(1) RRR 21 (P&H), in a similar situation, a meeting of the members of the Municipal Committee was held to consider the no-confidence motion. The District Magistrate enforced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and postponed the meeting of the Committee. However, 15 members of the Committee attended C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -7- .... the meeting in defiance of the orders passed by the District Magistrate and passed the resolution, whereas some of the members abstained from the meeting. The members who did not attend the meeting challenged the resolution on the plea that they were prevented from attending the meeting on account of the orders of the District Magistrate. Their plea was not accepted. It was held that “no doubt, under the aforesaid provision some order could be passed postponing assembly of some persons in the public places. Otherwise the District Magistrate had no power under the aforesaid provision or under any provision of the Municipal Act to postpone the meeting of members of the Municipal Committee. Since 15 members of the Municipal Committee attended the meeting in defiance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, it wold be entirely different whether any action against them on that account can be taken, but it cannot be said that they illegally held the meeting or that they could not pass the no-confidence motion against the petitioner in such a meeting.” A similar view has also been taken in the decision of this Court in C.W.P.No.6721 of 1999, Sadhu Singh and others v.State of Punjab and others, decided on January 30,2001.” It is evident from the above reproduced extract of the judgment that the Division Bench as well as the judgments relied upon by their Lordships pertained to the special meeting in which either the election of C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -8- .... the President or office bearers was involved or there was a question of enforcement of no-confidence motion etc. The agendas for these meetings were specified to be special and in my opinion, the decision in Ashok Kumar Gupta's case (supra) was rendered considering the fact that these were special meetings where special agendas which were either in continuation of the election process or were dealing with the fate of the elected office bearers which action was in continuation of the electoral process, but an ordinary meeting, where routine business is to be transacted, would be on a different pedestal than that of the special meeting. In an ordinary meeting, if some unforeseen circumstances intervene, then the President or the Chairman would be certainly within his right to adjourn the same so as to transact the business on the adjourned date. Section 27 of the Act contemplates a situation where a quorum is not complete,but it does not rule out any other situation where for some administrative exigency, the meeting has to be adjourned. As observed earlier, all the judgments which have been referred to by the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Gupta's case (supra) pertained to a special meeting with a special agenda pertaining to electoral process either directly or indirectly and, therefore, the observations assume significance as the same are with a purpose to obviate the mischief of tampering with the democratic process. On the basis of the above discussion, it is held that an ordinary meeting is different from a special meeting and the President's right to adjourn such a meeting for some unforeseen circumstances or to meet any C.W.P.No.4859 of 2009 -9- .... other administrative exigency cannot be doubted. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. March 27,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge