Allowed

Vinay Kumar and Others v. the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2024CWP/7947/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Elected councillors challenged refusal to convene a special meeting on their no-confidence motion against the Municipal Council President after some signatories withdrew their earlier requisition. The Court held a motion is decided only on the floor of the house, quashed the Deputy Commissioner's communication, and directed convening of the meeting.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 27.07.2024 quashed; Deputy Commissioner directed to convene meeting on requisition dated 25.07.2024 expeditiously.

Vinay Kumar and Others Vs the Deputy… — Municipal and Town Planning | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13220

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.7947 of 2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 02.12.2024

¶5

____________ ___________________________________________ Sh. Vinay Kumar and others …….Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and others … Respondents

¶8

_______________________________________________________

¶9

Coram:

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶11

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶13

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with communication dated 27^th July 2024, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby it came to be conveyed to the petitioners herein, who are elected members of the Municipal Council, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, that there is no requirement/provision to fix the special meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion

¶15

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

2024:HHC:13220

¶18

once such motion was withdrawn, petitioners herein have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to quash and set aside aforesaid order and issue direction to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to convene the meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion given by the petitioners herein against the President of the house.

¶19

Precisely, the facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that in month of May, 2021, Election of Municipal Council, Hamirpur was conducted and thereafter, 11 elected members of the council chose person namely, Manoj Minhas as President of Municipal Council, Hamirpur and since then he had been discharging the duty of President of Municipal Council, Hamirpur uninterruptedly. However, on 1^st March, 2024, (Annexure P-2), eight elected members of Municipal Council, Hamirpur addressed the communication to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, thereby stating that they are not satisfied with the functioning of the President of Municipal Council, Hamirpur and as such, they intend to bring No Confidence Motion against him. Having taken note of aforesaid requisition given by eight elected members, out of which, seven are petitioners herein, Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur passed order dated 02.03.2024, thereby authorizing Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur to convene a special meeting by giving

¶20

¶21

2024:HHC:13220

¶22

a notice of not less than fifteen days to the elected members for consideration on No Confidence Motion (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur in terms of Section 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 read with Rule 92 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015, Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur while apprising all the members of the council including the President and Vice President with regard to requisition sent by some of the members, expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against the elected President also requested them to come/ remain present at 11.00 AM on 22.03.2024 in the office of Nagar Parishad to deliberate upon the No Confidence Motion. Since despite there being aforesaid date fixed by Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur, requisition sent by the petitioners expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against the Elected President was not discussed in the house, petitioners herein again vide communication dated 25.07.2024, requested Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to convene meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion.

¶23

While responding to aforesaid communication, dated 25.07.2024, sent by the petitioners herein, Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur vide impugned order dated 26^th July, 2024 apprised the petitioners that since after making requisition vide communication

¶24

¶25

2024:HHC:13220

¶26

dated 02.03.2024, some of the elected members had withdrawn requisition vide communication dated 25^th July, 2024, there is no requirement/provision to fix the special meeting. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside order dated 27^th July, 2024. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that once majority of elected members vide communication 02.03.2024 (Annexure P-1), sent a requisition to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, thereby making it clear that they have no confidence in elected President, afore authority had no option, but to place the same before the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making this Court peruse Section 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 read with Rule 92 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015, vehemently argued that whenever No Confidence Motion is brought against the President or Vice President of the house singed by Majority of elected members , Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur either himself or through Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur may convene the meeting to discuss the requisition, whereby members had specifically expressed their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against the elected President within 15 days. He further submitted

¶27

¶28

2024:HHC:13220

¶29

that though in the case at hand, Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur having taken note of aforesaid provision of law, authorized Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur to convene meeting, who further in compliance of direction issued by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur though fixed meeting of the house on 22.03.2024, but yet meeting was not convened on one pretext or other. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that though requisition dated 02.03.2024 submitted by ten elected members could not be said to be withdrawn till the time same was not discussed in the house, rather in the event communication, if any, sent by the some elected members expressing their intention to withdraw the requisition, matter was required to be placed before the house, which was only competent to discuss the No Confidence Motion. He further submitted that though requisition dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) is still alive, but even if it is presumed that same had lapsed on account of communication dated 25.07.2024sent by some of the elected members, thereby expressing their intention to withdraw their requisition even then Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur after receipt of communication 25.07.2024, which was again signed by Majority of elected members, ought to have placed matter before the house for discussion. While referring to proviso 1 to Rule 92, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though aforesaid rule provides for withdrawal of motion before meeting, but that would not

¶30

¶31

2024:HHC:13220

¶32

mean that pursuant to motion, if any, given by the elected members meeting would not be convened by the Deputy Commissioner, rather after receipt of requisition made by Majority of elected members meeting of the house is compulsory required to be convened to discuss the motion because ‘No Confidence Motion’ can only be discussed in the house and can never be dealt by the Deputy Commissioner by discharging administrative duties.

¶33

To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General duly assisted by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, vehemently argued that once requisition dated 02.03.2024, submitted by Majority of elected members was withdrawn on 25.07.2024, there was no requirement, if any, for the Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting of house. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Rattan, learned Advocate General placed heavy reliance upon proviso 1 of Rule 92, which provides for withdrawal of motion before meeting. While making this Court peruse aforesaid rule, learned Advocate General attempted to argue that No Confidence Motion against the elected President can only be placed before the house, if same is not withdrawn before convening of meeting by the Deputy Commissioner, but once such motion is withdrawn before convening meeting, there is no requirement for

¶34

¶35

2024:HHC:13220

¶36

Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting. He further submitted that since Majority of elected members had withdrawn their earlier requisition dated 02.03.2024 vide communication dated 25.07.2024, there was otherwise no occasion for Deputy Commissioner to take note of No Confidence Motion, if any, submitted before him by Majority of elected members vide communication dated 25.07.2024 because in that eventuality, proviso 2 of Rule 92 would come into play, which provides that subsequent motion of no confidence shall not be maintainable within the interval of one year of the last motion of no confidence. He further submitted that since in the case at hand first No Confidence Motion was moved on 01.03.2024 and same was withdrawn on 25.07.2024, subsequent motion, if any, dated 25.07.2024 was otherwise not maintainable in terms of proviso 2 of Rule 92.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

¶38

Before ascertaining the correctness of the rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be apt to take note of Section 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 read with Rule 92 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015, which deal with No Confidence Motion, if any, brought against the elected member, herein below:-

¶39

¶40

2024:HHC:13220

¶41

“ 25. Motion of no-confidence against President or Vice

¶42

President:-

¶43

(1) A motion of no-confidence against the President or the Vice President may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules

¶44

(2) Where a notice of intention to move a resolution requiring the President or the Vice-President of the municipality to vacate his office, signed by not less than majority of its total elected members is given and if a motion of no-confidence is carried by a resolution passed by a majority of elected members present and voting at its general or special meeting, the quorum of which is not less than one-half of its total elected members, the President or the Vice-President against whom such resolution is passed shall cease to hold office forthwith.

¶45

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the President or the VicePresident of the municipality shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is to be discussed against him. Such meeting shall be presided over by such person, and convened in such manner, as may be prescribed and the person against whom a motion of noconfidence is moved, shall have a right to vote and to take part in the proceedings of such meeting.

¶46

(4) Motion of no-confidence under this section shall not be maintainable within one year of the date of his election to such office and any subsequent motion of no-confidence shall not be maintainable within the interval of one year of the last motion of no-confidence”.

¶47

“ 92. No confidence motion against the President and Vice-

¶48

President. - (1) A motion of no confidence against the President or Vice-President of a municipality may be made through a requisition given in writing addressed to the Deputy Commissioner signed by not less than majority of its total elected members:

¶49

¶50

2024:HHC:13220

¶51

Provided that the members who have made such a motion may withdraw the same before the meeting is convened for the purpose:

¶52

Provided further that motion of no confidence under this rule shall not be maintainable within one year of the date of his election to such office and any subsequent motion of noconfidence shall not be maintainable within the interval of one year of the last motion of no-confidence.

¶53

(2) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized by the Deputy Commissioner shall circulate to each member a copy of the requisition for the use of the members.

¶54

(3) The Deputy Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized by the Deputy Commissioner shall convene a special meeting by giving a notice of not less than fifteen days for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub-rule (1) and shall preside over at such meeting.

¶55

(4) If the no-confidence motion is carried out with the support of majority of elected members present and voting at such special meeting, the quorum of which is not less than one half of its total elected members, the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office.

¶56

Section 25 of the Act, as detailed hereinabove, provides

¶57

for No Confidence Motion against the President and Vice President and as per aforesaid provision of law, where a notice of intention to move a resolution requiring the President or the Vice-President of the municipality to vacate his office, signed by not less than majority of its total elected members is given and if a motion of no-confidence is carried by a resolution passed by a majority of elected members

¶58

¶59

2024:HHC:13220

¶60

present, the President or the Vice-President against whom such resolution is passed shall cease to hold office forthwith. To give effect to aforesaid provision of law specific procedure has been laid down in the rules and Rule 92 specifically deals with the procedure to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner, while considering/deciding the requisition made by Majority of elected members, expressing their intention to bring no confidence against the elected members, be it President or Vice President.

¶61

Rule 92 (2) enjoins duty upon the Deputy Commissioner or such other Officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) authorized by the Deputy Commissioner to circulate requisition submitted by Majority of elected members, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against the elected President or Vice President to each member of the house. After circulation of aforesaid notice, Deputy Commissioner or Officer authorized by him i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) shall convene a special meeting by giving a notice of not less than fifteen days for the consideration of the motion referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 and shall preside over such meeting. Rule 92(4) may be of much relevance in this case because it provides that if the no-confidence motion is carried out with the support of majority of elected members present and voting at such

¶62

¶63

2024:HHC:13220

¶64

special meeting, President or Vice President shall be deemed to have vacated his office.

¶65

Though, in the case at hand, it came to be vehemently argued by learned Advocate General that since in the case at hand requisition dated 01.03.2024 submitted by Majority of elected members, thereby requiring Deputy Commissioner to convene meeting was withdrawn by communication dated 25.07.2024, there was no requirement, if any, to convene the meeting of the house, however aforesaid submission deserves dismissal being totally contrary to the provision of law.

¶66

Admittedly, in the case at hand, Majority of elected members vide requisition dated 01.03.2024 had called upon Deputy Commissioner to convene meeting of the house as they had lost faith in the elected President. At first instance, Deputy Commissioner, having taken note of aforesaid request submitted by the Majority of elected members, passed order dated 02.03.2024 in terms of Section 25 of the Act and Rule 92 of the Rules, thereby authorizing Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur to convene special meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion brought against the President. Though, Sub Divisional Officer(C), Hamirpur, while complying the aforesaid order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, fixed a date of special meeting of the house, but same was

¶67

¶68

2024:HHC:13220

¶69

never convened. Though, it has been stated in the reply filed by the respondent that meeting scheduled to be held on 22.03.2024 was cancelled on account of imposition of Model Code of Conduct imposed by Election Commission of India on account of Parliamentary election as well as bye-election of Hamirpur assembly, but no material, worth credence, has been adduced on record, to demonstrate that on account of imposition of Model Code of Conduct, there was bar, if any, for Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion, which was admittedly brought before imposition of Model Code of Conduct by Election Commission of India.

¶70

Since, no decision ever came to be taken on the request submitted by the majority of elected members vide communication dated 01.03.2024, majority of elected members again vide communication 25.07.2024, while making reference to its earlier communication 02.03.2024, requested Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to convene the meeting of the house to discuss No Confidence Motion, but such prayer of them, came to be rejected on the ground that since majority of elected members, who, at one point of time, had given requisition vide communication dated 02.03.2024 had withdrawn their requisition, there was no requirement, if any, to convene the meeting of the house. Though, this Court is of the view

¶71

¶72

2024:HHC:13220

¶73

that once communication dated 01.3.2024 was sent by Majority of elected members to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against elected President, there was no option to Deputy Commissioner, but to place the same before the house, but even if it is presumed that on account of withdrawal of afore requisition by some of elected members, there was no requirement to convene the meeting, subsequent requisition made vide communication dated 25.07.2024 could not be rejected while placing reliance on proviso 2 of Rule 92. No doubt, proviso 1 to Rule 92, as taken note hereinabove, suggests that members, who have made such a Motion, may withdraw the same before the meeting is convened, but definitely that would not mean that in that eventuality, Deputy Commissioner shall not place the requisition before the house. In this regard reference is necessary required to be made to Rule 92(4) of the Rules, which provides that if no-confidence motion is carried out with the support of majority of elected members present, the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have vacated his office, meaning thereby No Confidence Motion, if any, brought can only be discussed in the house. Action of withdrawing requisition before meeting, if any, by the elected members may not be reason for Deputy Commissioner to place the same before the house because No

¶74

¶75

2024:HHC:13220

¶76

Confidence Motion once brought can only be discussed in the house. In case some of the elected members after having sent their requisition, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion intend to withdraw the same are required to come present in meeting convened by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Rule 92 and Section 25 of the Act and they can vote against motion. Another question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is whether communication dated 25.07.2024 submitted by the Majority of elected members, thereby calling upon Deputy Commissioner to convene meeting of the house can be said to be subsequent motion or not in terms of proviso 2 of Rule 92?”.

¶77

As has been observed hereinabove, though this Court is of the definite view that requisition dated 01.03.2024 submitted by majority of elected members could not have been shelved by the Deputy Commissioner on the pretext that before meeting of house could be convened, some of the members withdrew the requisition, but even if it is presumed that in terms of proviso 1 of Rule 92, Deputy Commissioner was not required to convene meeting of the house, he was otherwise under obligation to convene meeting of the house in terms of requisition dated 25.07.2024 submitted by Majority of elected members, wherein though admittedly they had made reference to earlier requisition dated 01.03.2024, but specific request came to be

¶78

¶79

2024:HHC:13220

¶80

made to convene meeting of the house for discussing the No Confidence Motion. Though, it came to be vehemently argued by learned Advocate General that since on account of withdrawal of requisition by some of the elected members, earlier No Confidence Motion dated 01.03.2024 had failed and no second motion of confidence could have been brought by elected members within a period of one year from the date of failure of earlier motion, which in the case at hand is of 25.07.2024 but such plea of him deserves rejection being totally contrary to the rule occupying the field. Needless to say, if the scheme of the Act as well as Rules framed thereunder is perused in its entirety, it nowhere empowers Deputy Commissioner to decide the will of elected members, rather he is expected to act as an umpire and in discharge of administrative duties can only place the requisition sent by elected members, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion before the house, enabling elected members of the house to discuss the same.

¶81

At the cost of repetition, it is again observed that though proviso 1 of Rule 92 provides for withdrawal of requisition, if any, given by the elected members, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion, but there is nothing to suggests that after withdrawal of requisition, as detailed hereinabove, Deputy Commissioner is not under obligation to convene the meeting of the

¶82

¶83

2024:HHC:13220

¶84

house. Once No Confidence Motion is brought by the elected members that can only be discussed in the house, wherein members, who had subsequently withdrawn from the requisition can either vote in favour of the resolution or against the resolution.

¶85

15. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in case titled Omar Azhar Kakroo vs. UT of J&K and others, decided on 24^th March 2021 , wherein it has been held as under:-

¶86

“ 13. Admittedly, the No-Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner on its subsequent withdrawal cannot be termed as having failed by deciding the same on the floor of the council, therefore, the withdrawal will not have any effect on the Motion of No-Confidence, moved against the petitioner by the majority of the Councilors, which is processed for floor test in accordance with law. The contention raised by Mr. J. A. Kawoosa, learned senior counsel in the writ petition with the support of arguments and supply of law, if accepted will render the whole scheme of law qua subject of No- Confidence against the President and Vice President as redundant. Therefore, being misconceived shall stand rejected.” 16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in case titled Smt. Chandrakali Neti versus State of Chhattisgarh and others, in C.W.[C] No.216 of 2013, decided on 20.02.2013, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶87

“7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents & interveners opposed the petition and submit that meeting to table / carry 'no confidence motion' was proposed on 23.1.2013

¶88

¶89

2024:HHC:13220

¶90

but on that date neither the 'no confidence motion' has been tabled or carried nor it has been rejected in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1994 and Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore, for convening fresh meeting for tabling/carrying 'no confidence motion', sub-clause (iii) of subsection (3) of Section-21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 would not create any bar”.

¶91

17. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed High

¶92

Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in case titled Baijnath Patel vs. Collector Mahasamund and others, passed in WA No.116 of 2017, decided on 8.3.2019, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶93

“3. It was the case of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge that a motion of no confidence was earlier brought by the Panchas on 19.07.2016. Such application for a motion of no confidence stood rejected by the prescribed authority on 23.08.2016 meaning thereby that the vote of confidence was never placed on the floor of the house by convening a meeting of the elected representative to debate on the motion of no confidence. The second motion was brought on 26.08.2016 which was obviously less than one year of so-called previous motion of no confidence and a plea was taken that the second motion ought not to have been entertained by the prescribed authority and if the meeting was convened where no confidence got carried and Appellant removed, the same was required to be interfered with.

¶94

Since the argument hinges around the statutory provision, the Court would like to reproduce the same:-

¶95

“21. No-confidence motion against Sapranch and Up Sarpanch. -(1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panhas constituting the Gram

¶96

¶97

2024:HHC:13220

¶98

Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or UpSarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the UpSarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceedings of the meeting.

¶99

(3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of-

¶100

(i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up Sarpanch enter their respective office;

¶101

(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires;

¶102

(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no confidence was rejected. (emphasis ours) (4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final.”

¶103

The argument of the counsel for the Appellant before the learned Single Judge and even before us is that as per Section 21(3)(iii) of the Act, 1993, the embargo of one year from the date of previous motion of no confidence talks of rejection. Submission is that any and every kind of rejection of the

¶104

¶105

2024:HHC:13220

¶106

previous motion of no confidence will come in the way of a second motion of no confidence.

¶107

Admitted position in the present case is that the earlier motion of no confidence was rejected by the prescribed authority for the infirmities noted by him. The motion was never brought before the house, therefore, it was no motion in the eyes of law.

¶108

7.From a reading of the statutory provision of Section 21, especially subsection (3), it is evident that the no confidence must be brought before the august house and only on its rejection, the statutory bar of one year before the second motion could be entertained will kick in. If there was no occasion for the house to consider or debate the motion of no confidence earlier and such motion was rejected at the threshold by an executive authority, the word 'rejected' here will not mean rejection by the executive authority or the prescribed authority, but rejection by the august house.

¶109

The learned Single Judge was conscious of such position as well as the possibility of mischief which could be played around with the statutory provision if the word 'rejected' is interpreted lightly in following words:-

¶110

“8. To attract the bar contained under Section 21 (3) (iii), the rejection of motion of no confidence should be on merits and not on mere technicalities. This interpretation would serve the legislative intent because the set up of the provision contained in the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules, 1994 needs adherence to the rule of purposive construction. The purpose being not to allow an incumbent Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house to remain in the office on the strength of technicalities, but not when the house had no occasion to discuss and vote on the motion. In a given case, the prescribed authority or any other officer may protect the incumbent Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house by not acting on the

¶111

¶112

2024:HHC:13220

¶113

application for convening a meeting to consider the meeting of no confidence.

¶114

Likewise, the Sarpanch may himself initiate such motion by acting in collusion with some supporting Panchas and, thereafter, getting it rejected on the ground of noncompliance of the provisions under the rules. To avoid such misuse of legal provision either by the prescribed authority or by the incumbent Sarpanch, the rejection of motion of no confidence as referred in Section 21 (3) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has to be read as rejection on merits and not on technical grounds.

¶115

If the matter is considered from another angle, the application for initiation of proceedings for consideration of motion of no confidence does not become a motion unless it is tabled in the house and discussed for consideration on merits. Till the application remains in the hands of prescribed authority either at the stage of verification of signature or up to the time before holding of meeting, it does not convert into consideration on the motion of no confidence by the house but it remains in the pipeline for consideration of the motion, therefore, to call it 'a motion of no confidence' in real terms, it has to be considered by the house and not at any stage prior to that. Before this stage, it merely remains a proposal for bringing a motion of no confidence and it remains in pipeline in form of an application.

¶116

While taking the above said view, I am fortified by the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Babpusingh, S/o Ghisaji v. State of M.P. reported in 1989 MPLJ 322. In the said decision, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held thus at paras 13 & 14 :

¶117

“13. The word 'reconsideration' in sub-section clause (3) has a material meaning i.e. when once the no-confidence motion is placed before the House and after it is thought over by the members and thereafter it is disposed of then it

¶118

¶119

2024:HHC:13220

¶120

can be said that it cannot be reconsidered as it was disposed of. From the order of the Chairman of the specially convened meeting it is evident that it was not considered at all by the members of the House. Section 14(2)(iii) is also relevant for the purposes of consideration when the motion of no-confidence is placed before the House, which speaks that the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the meeting. 14. In the present case, as the motion of no confidence was not placed for disposal before the House it cannot be said that the no-confidence motion moved was finally disposed of and cannot be placed for reconsideration against the petitioner. The prohibition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam is reconsideration of no-confidence motion within six months from the date of disposal of the earlier no-confidence motion. Besides the word 'consideration' and word 'disposal' are also very relevant which denote to deal with the motion definitely. This having not been done, the bar of sub-section (3) of Section 14 does not come into play.”

¶121

18. Having perused aforesaid judgments passed by the constitutional Courts, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that till the time, requisition sent by Majority of elected members, thereby expressing their intention to bring No Confidence Motion against the elected President and Vice President, is not tabled before the house, same shall not be termed to be No Confidence Motion, rather that would remain simply a requisition, if it is so, subsequent motion, if any, brought by subsequent requisition, if any, thereby expressing intention to move No Confidence Motion against the elected President

¶122

¶123

2024:HHC:13220

¶124

cannot be rejected on the ground of withdrawal of earlier requisition within prescribed period of one year. Even if elected members, who at one point of time, had given written requisition, thereby expressing intention to bring No Confidence Motion, if intend, can withdraw the same in terms of provision 1 to Rule 92, but such action of them would not be a reason for Deputy Commissioner not to lay the requisition submitted at first instance, thereby expressing intention to bring No Confidence Motion in the house, which is otherwise only competent to take decision upon No Confidence Motion proposed to be brought by some of the elected members. Intention to withdraw must reflect in voting, which elected members can only do pursuant to placing of the motion in the house. Since in the case at hand there is nothing to suggest that requisition dated 01.03.2024 submitted by Majority of elected members of Council was ever laid before the house, subsequent requisition dated 25.07.2024 submitted by Majority of elected members, thereby expressing their intention to bring no confidence motion against elected President could not have been rejected by Deputy Commissioner on the ground of withdrawal of earlier requisition dated 1.03.2024 made by Majority of elected members vide communication 25.07.2024.

¶125

19. Though, in the case at hand earlier requisition dated 01.03.2024 could not be taken to its logical end despite there being

¶126

¶127

2024:HHC:13220

¶128

initiation of steps by Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 25 of the Act and Rule 92, but yet afore authority was under obligation to convene meeting of the house in terms of subsequent motion dated 25.07.2024 given by Majority of elected members.

¶129

20. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. Communication dated 27.7.202 4(Annexure P-5) issued by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, is quashed and set-aside and afore authority is directed to convene meeting of the house in terms of requisition dated 25.07.2024 submitted by Majority of elected members before the house in accordance with law expeditiously. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶130

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶131

December 02, 2024 (shankar)

Vinay Kumar and Others v. the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar and Others v. the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs Hpcl and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Anand Moudgil Vs State Transport Authority Hp and Anr.

Hari Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another