CWP No.11542 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.11542 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.07.2010 Ranbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner is impugning order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, under Section 252(2)/253 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) and further impugning proceedings of meeting held on 7.1.2010. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was elected as Member of the municipal Committee, Beri, District Jhajjar. 1/3rd members of the Municipal committee submitted requisition to the Deputy Commissioner for ‘No-confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. A notice CWP No.11542 of 2010 2 dated 4.12.2009 was issued thereby fixing 17.12.2009 to convene a meeting at 11.00 AM in the office of SDO (Civil) Beri (Annexure P-1). Petitioner filed civil suit challenging notice dated 4.12.2009 on the ground that the notice is illegal. As per the mandate of law, 15 days notice ought to have been issued. The Civil Court vide order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) by observing that the notice dated 4.12.2009 is bad in law and is against Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, issued injunction not to convene a meeting pursuant to the notice dated 4.12.2009. However, the Civil Court further observed that the defendant shall be at liberty to convene meeting as per rules after giving 15 days notice. No meeting was held on 17.12.2009 pursuant to the notice dated 4.12.2009 in view of the injunction order passed by the civil Court. Thereafter, notice dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) was issued thereby fixing meeting on 7.1.2010 at 11.30 AM in the office of SDO (Civil), Beri. Meeting was held on 7.1.2010 and ‘No- confidence Motion’ was passed against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana under Section 252(2)/253 of the 1973 Act, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 72-A(3) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, second notice dated 21.12.2009 is bad since first meeting was directed to be convened on 17.12.2009 and from 17.12.2009, no meeting could be directed to be held within six months for the same purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Raghubar Dass Vs. State of Punjab 1984 PLJ CWP No.11542 of 2010 3 322 and in Tarun Bhandari Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2006(2) PLR 719 and argued that whether meeting was held or not on 17.12.2009, second meeting could not be convened within six months from 17.12.2009. In the matter of Tarun Bhandari (supra), Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 23 has held as under : - “23. From the factual matrix described above, the point which requires consideration now is whether the meeting for consideration 'no-confidence motion' which took place on 19.10.2005 was convened or not. A Division Bench of this Court in Raghubar Dass's case (supra) had observed that the words 'convene' a meeting' would indeed be synonymous with 'holding a meeting'. The Calcutta High Court in Dwarka Nath Dutta 's case (supra) had held that persons who are present at a meeting in fact but who do not take active part in the proceedings or vote, cannot be regarded as absent for the purpose of a quorum. A perusal of the proceedings of 10.10.2005 shows that the meeting for no confidence had started and 17 members had attended the same. It was after the starting of the meeting that 13 members wanted to withdraw the 'no-confidence motion'. There is no provision in the statute or under the rules which provides for withdrawal of 'no- confidence motion' after a meeting has been convened. Under proviso to sub-rule(1) of Rule 72A of the 1978 Rules, a motion of no-confidence may be withdrawn at any time before the meeting is convened for that purpose. Thus, judgments in Baldev Mittar Khullar 's case (supra) and Kangiam Jadhob CWP No.11542 of 2010 4 Singh's case (supra) do not advance the case of the respondents. However, Raghubar Dass's case (supra) supports the case of the petitioner.” In the matter of Tarun Bhandari. (supra), reliance was placed on the judgement of Raghubar Dass (supra). Undisputedly, petitioner himself challenged the first notice dated 4.12.2009 on the ground that the same is bad since the notice is not issued as per Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, which requires that notice must be of minimum 15 days. The civil Court agreeing with the petitioner found that the notice is bad in law and it is not 15 days’ notice and stayed the meeting which was to be held on 17.12.2009. In view of this fact, no meeting was convened on 17.12.2009. If no meeting was convened on 17.12.2009, in view of the injunction order passed by the civil Court on 16.12.2009, now it is not open to the petitioner to argue that no meeting can be held within six months from 17.12.2009. In Tarun Bhandari’s case (supra), this Court has held that the word ‘meeting convened’ mean holding a meeting. Since no meeting was held, hence argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Petition is devoid of merits and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 05.07.2010 sk.