IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 10961 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009. Neelam Sharma --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was elected as Municipal Councilor, Ambala. She was elected as President of Municipal Council on 5.5.2005. A motion for passing No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was moved. A meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion was convened on 27.6.2007. It is stated that the motion was, however, dropped in the meeting. Some Municipal Councilors moved a second requisition for the passing of the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner allegedly for not performing the constitutional duties. A copy of the requisition is placed on record as Annexure P-1. The Deputy Commissioner authorized respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala to convene the meeting for the purpose. Respondent no.3 accordingly issued notice dated 10.3.2009 for the special meeting to be held on 31.3.2009 at 11 A.M in the Conference Hall of the Municipal Committee, Amabala Sadar to consider the No Confidence Motion. It is stated that no meeting was held on the said date and time. Respondent no.3 issued another notice dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) and convened another meeting on 24.4.2009 to consider the No Confidence CWP. No. 10961 of 2009 -2- Motion against the petitioner. The petitioner filed CWP No. 6155 of 2009 before this Court challenging the notice dated 15.4.2009 for convening the special meeting on 24.4.2009 During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, No Confidence Motion was carried out against the petitioner on 24.4.2009. Consequently, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.7.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of her removal. Order dated 13.7.2009 reads as under:- “ It is admitted case of the parties that during the pendency of this petition the respondents have conducted the meeting and passed No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, removing him from the post of President of the Municipal Council, Ambala. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh one challenging the order of removal by No Confidence Motion as well. Prayer allowed. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.” On the basis of the liberty given by this Court the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the resolution dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P- 5) removing the petitioner from the post of President. The solitary ground on which the said resolution has been challenged is that the same is violative of Rule 72 (a) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules. It is alleged that the 1st meeting for the purpose of No Confidence Motion was convened on 31.3.2009 but no motion could be passed on the said date and the 2nd meeting could be held only after a period of six months. The second contention is that for holding a special meeting for passing a No Confidence Motion minimum 15 days notice is CWP. No. 10961 of 2009 -3- required. According to the petitioner no meeting was held on 31.3.2009 and thus a fresh meeting was necessitated, if, the Councilors were serious making a request for No Confidence Motion. The SDO, Ambala, however, issued fresh notice for convening the meeting on 15.4.2009 and the meeting was held on 15.4.2009 i.e within a period of less than 15 days, which is in gross contravention of the sub clause 3 of Rule 72. On being put to notice the respondents filed their reply. The stand of the respondents is that the meeting for the purpose of consideration of No Confidence Motion was convened on 31.3.2009 which was postponed to 24.4.2009 and for adjourned meeting no notice was required. According to respondents No Confidence Motion was passed on 24.4.2009 which was an adjourned meeting. With a view to ascertain the nature of meeting held on 31.3.2009 the record of the Municipal Council was summoned. It is admitted position that vide notice dated 10.3.2009 issued by the SDO, Ambala special meeting was convened on 31.3.2009 at 11 A.M. The copy of the minutes of the meeting is not on record. To the contrary the SDO vide his report dated 2.4.2009 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala that though the meeting was called on 31.3.2009 at 11 A.M for which information was given to all the Municipal Councilors, however, on account of his sudden health problem on 30.3.2009 the meeting could not be held. On the basis of the aforesaid report the Deputy Commissioner passed the following order: “ After having gone through the report dated 2.4.2009 submitted by you on the aforesaid subject, wherein it has been mentioned that no confidence motion scheduled for 31.3.2009 could not be taken for CWP. No. 10961 of 2009 -4- consideration before the house due to the reasons mentioned in the report. In view of the reasons narrated in the aforesaid report by you and further a representation dated 2.4.2009 received from Municipal Councilors of Amabala Sadar, I hereby in continuation to my letter No. 264/LFA dated 9.3.2009 direct you to again convene a meeting of the house for consideration of no confidence motion moved against Mrs. Neelam Sharma, President Ambala Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. Outcome of the meeting be intimated, to the undersigned, after the meeting, immediately.” The aforesaid order clearly indicates that no meeting was held on 31.3.2009 and the Deputy Commissioner directed the SDO to again convene a meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion. Based upon the aforesaid order a fresh notice was issued on 15.4.2009. The notice dated 15.4.2009 reads as under:- “ On the subject cited above, a meeting was scheduled to be held on 31.3.2009 at 11.00 a.m but could not be held due to unavoidable circumstances. Now, the same meeting has been called for 24.4.2009 at 11.00 a.m. In the Meeting Hall of Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. This is for your information. Sd/- Sub Divisional Officer(C) Ambala.” This notice also suggests that no meeting was held on 31.3.2009 and thus another meeting was proposed to be held on 24.4.2009. As a matter of fact the meeting scheduled to be held on 24.4.2009 was not an adjourned meeting but a new meeting for the purpose. Rule 720A (3) specifically requires not less than 15 days notice to convene a special CWP. No. 10961 of 2009 -5- meeting for consideration of the Motion of No Confidence. Admittedly, from 15.4.2009 to 24.4.2009 the period is only 9/10 days. The meeting held on 24.4.2009 was thus in gross contravention of Rule 72-A. In view of the above circumstances, the resolution dated 24.4.2009 is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the removal of the petitioner as Municipal Councilor is also set aside. Petition allowed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.10.2009 lucky