Punjab & Haryana HC: No Confidence Motion against Municipal Council President upheld
Case Name: Sheela Sehgal v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2020
Citation: CWP No. 20472 of 2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta
Held: The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Council President challenging the validity of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed against her. The Court held that as per Section 21 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, the motion had the requisite 2/3rd support of elected members. The confusion regarding duplicate signatures of a Councillor named Renu Bala was clarified, since two different Councillors with the same name existed. The Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in convening or conducting the meeting, and ruled that the plea of six-month bar on second meeting was not applicable as the earlier meeting was only adjourned, not concluded.
Summary: The petitioner, elected as Councillor from Ward No.16, Sirsa, and later as President of the Municipal Council, challenged the proceedings dated 01.08.2018 whereby a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against her. She contended that only 20 Councillors had supported the motion, whereas 21 (2/3rd of 31 total) were required. She further alleged that one Councillor, Renu Bala, had fraudulently signed twice—once as Councillor of Ward No.30 and again as Ward No.03—to inflate the numbers.
The State and other respondents opposed, submitting that there were in fact two different Councillors with the name Renu Bala from different wards (Ward No.18 and Ward No.30). Affidavits filed by 21 Councillors confirmed their support to the motion. The Court noted that 22 votes were cast in support of the motion, thus exceeding the required 2/3rd strength.
The petitioner also argued that convening a second meeting within six months violated Rule 72-A. The Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the first meeting fixed on 12.07.2018 could not be held due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer, and thus the meeting of 01.08.2018 was the first effective meeting.
Decision: The Court held that the ‘No Confidence Motion’ had been validly carried with the requisite statutory majority. The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.