LPA No. 1363 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1363 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 12, 2010 Asif Qurashi alias Prince …..Appellant Versus Kewal Krishan Jindal and others …..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justsice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari *** Present: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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, CJ. By this appeal the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.9.2010 has been challenged. The brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that 8 members of the Municipal Council, Malerkoptla submitted a requisition to the appellant proposing 'No Confidence Motion' against him. As per section 25(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act ,1911(hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appellant was obligated to call a special meeting. Since no such meeting was called by the appellant, the said 8 members invoked Section 25(3) of the Act and requisitioned the meeting for 10.9.2010. This second notice was served on LPA No. 1363 of 2010(O&M) 2 the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 17.9.2010. Since as per the bylaws the time for issuing notice for an extra ordinary meeting is five days, no notice was issued by the said officer. Aggrieved by that the said 8 persons filed a writ petition. In reply the stand of the appellant was that consequent to the notice of the said 8 petitioners he reached the venue of the meeting on 10.9.2010 but the requisitionists did not turn up. During arguments before the learned Single Judge a broad consensus emerged as per which it was agreed that a fresh meeting would be held. Consequently the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition with a direction to the SSP, Sangrur to make adequate security arrangements to ensure that the said proposed meeting was not disturbed. To our query as to how this appeal would lie against an agreed order, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that even though he had agreed for a meeting yet no such meeting could be held since the earlier resolution was not carried and under bye-law 2(c) of the bylaws of Municipal Council, Malerkotla no fresh meeting could be held except in the circumstances enumerated therein. In our opinion once a consensus was arrived at before the learned Single Judge that a fresh meeting would be called to discuss the issue of no confidence against the appellant, it was not open to the appellant to have opposed the holding of such meeting. Consequently he cannot be heard to urge that the meeting could not be called. Apart from that we must also notice that a somewhat analogous provision exists under the Panchayati Raj Act. In that context in LPA No. 1324 of 2010 decided on October 12, 2010 we have held as follows:- “ In fact, the learned Single Judge has meticulously followed the mandate of Section 19 of the Act by giving seven clear days' LPA No. 1363 of 2010(O&M) 3 notice. The proviso clearly states that the motion must be lost before a bar of two years comes into play. In fact, the motion was carried, but the decision was set aside on the ground of seven clear days' notice was not given. Nevertheless, a direction was given to hold fresh meeting after seven clear days' notice. In our view, the motion which though carried without seven clear days' notice cannot be said to have been lost so as to attract the bar of two years.” Since no meeting did or could take place on 10.9.2010 it cannot be held that any motion was lost. Thus both on law and in equity this appeal must fail. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 12, 2010 sunita