IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28th September, 2010 Kewal Krishan Jindal and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 13877 of 2010 CM is allowed and the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. Civil Misc. No. 13893 of 2010 CM is allowed and the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4, along with Annexures R-4/1 and R-4/2, is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 Eight members of the Municipal Council Malerkotla, District Sangrur submitted a requisition proposing no-confidence-motion on 10th Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 (O&M) August, 2010. Grievance of the petitioners is that 14 days had elapsed but no agenda was circulated for calling the meeting. It is submitted that the Municipal Councilors invoked Section 25(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and called up a meeting of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla. They had fixed the meeting for 10th September, 2010 after lapse of the statutory period and a requisition to this effect was handed over to the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 7th September, 2010. Section 25(3) of the Act reads as under: “25(3). If the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, fails to call a meeting of the committee within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of requisition, the members who had signed the requisition may convene a meeting of the committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the committee within a period of thirty days of the making of such requisition and notwithstanding anything contained in this Act such meeting shall be deemed to be a validly conveyed meeting. Provided that no business other than that specified in the requisition shall be transacted in such meeting and the quorum for such a meeting shall be as provided for a special meeting under sub-Section (1) of Section 27.” Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon Business Bye-Law No.3 under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act to state that it was incumbent upon the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary of the Municipal Council to serve a notice of the meeting upon the members of the Municipal Council. It is stated that no such notice was served by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3-Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla, has drawn my attention to Business Bye-Law No.13 under Section 31(1)(c) of 2 Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 (O&M) the Act to state that for serving a notice, at least five clear days are to be afforded to the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary. It is stated that the notice was received on 7th September, 2010 fixing the meeting for 10th September, 2010 and since it had not provided five clear days, the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla could not issue and serve the notices upon the members of the Municipal Council. To the contrary, Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate appearing for respondent No.4-President of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, has stated that requisition was received on 7th September, 2010 wherein a meeting was fixed for 10th September, 2010 and the President had gone to the place of meeting on that day but the eight members, who had sent the requisition, did not appear there. This fact is vehemently disputed by Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate appearing for the petitioners. He has stated that the eight members of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla did reach at the place of meeting and since the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary had not served the notices of the requisition upon the members along with the agenda, they had noticed this fact and had sent the minutes of the meeting to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab. In the proceedings, they had stated that the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary had not acted due to political pressure. This Court will not go into the disputed questions of fact, which have been pleaded and raised. Suffice it to say, eight members of the Municipal Council had submitted a requisition proposing no- confidence-motion against the President of the Municipal Council. After lapse of the statutory period, they had requisitioned a meeting for 10th September, 2010 and had informed the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla. The Executive Officer-cum-Secretary has rightly stated that since five clear days were not provided to him, 3 Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 (O&M) therefore, he could not serve the notices of the meeting upon the members. Mr. Attariwala, on instructions from Manbir Singh Gill, Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla, has stated that in pursuance of the requisition received on 7th September, 2010, a notice of five clear days shall be served upon the members of the Municipal Council and a meeting shall be convened on 14th October, 2010. Mr. Khunger, on instructions from Asif Qurashi alias Prince, President of the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, has stated that the President shall preside over the meeting on 14th October, 2010 to be convened by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla, for which the notices shall be served upon the members by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary. Mr. Attariwala and Mr. Ali have jointly stated that they apprehend that there may be law-and-order problem and the meeting to be convened may not be disturbed. They have stated that this Court should ensure necessary safeguards for the fair conduct of the meeting. Mr. Khunger has also reiterated the statement made by Mr.Attariwala and Mr.Ali, as parties have been primarily shifting the blame on the others to say that they will not allow smooth conduct of the meeting. Without going into the allegations and counter-allegations, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur is directed to act as an Observer in the meeting to be convened by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 14th October, 2010. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur shall make adequate security arrangements and shall ensure that the meeting is not disturbed. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between counsel for the parties during the course of arguments, which have been noticed 4 Civil Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 (O&M) in the earlier part of this judgment and the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order, attested by the Special Secretary of this Court, be supplied to Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.3, for onward transmission and compliance. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 28, 2010 rps 5