Manjeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manjeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the only relief was condonation of the 63-day delay in filing the appeal (CM-1418-LPA-2025 allowed). The appeal itself was dismissed and pending applications stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether any illegality could be shown in the meeting dated 12.11.2024 convened vide letter/notice dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against the appellant. +1 more

Court's answer

Neither before the learned Single Judge nor in the present appeal could the appellant point out any illegality in the meeting dated 12.11.2024 convened to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' against her.

Ratio / Principle

The Court proceeded on the learned Single Judge's finding that the meeting scheduled for 29.08.2024 was never convened, and treated the absence of any demonstrated illegality in the subsequent meeting as dispositive.

Key takeaways

The contentions founded on respondents No.5 to 7 having ceased to be members of the House and on the alleged misinterpretation of Section 63 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 yielded no illegality in the Court's view; finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA dismissed. The Division Bench upheld the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition by which the appellant had challenged the notices/letters dated 13.08.2024 and 28.10.2024 (Annexures P-3 and P-9) convening meetings to consider a 'No Confidence Motion' against her under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The meeting convened vide notice Annexure P-3 (for 29.08.2024) was never held, so the motion was neither put to the House nor considered or decided; the learned Single Judge had found no provision of the 1994 Act or the rules thereunder requiring a meeting so convened to be held on the date fixed. Neither before the learned Single Judge nor in the appeal could the appellant point out any illegality in the fresh meeting dated 12.11.2024; the pleas that respondents No.5 to 7 had ceased to be members of the House and that Section 63 of the 1994 Act had been misinterpreted did not render the meeting illegal. Delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was condoned (CM-1418-LPA-2025).

LPA-552-2025

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-552-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2025

MANJEET KAUR

……Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present:Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the appellant.

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

CM-1418-LPA-2025

For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA-552-2025

Challenge in the instant intra Court appeal is to the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants had laid challenge to the notices/letters dated 13.08.2024 and 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-9 respectively).

HIMANSHU 2025.02.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

LPA-552-2025

-2-

The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition has found that the meeting convened vide notice Annexure P- 3 for ‘No Confidence Motion’ was never held and, therefore, such motion against the appellant was neither put to the House nor it was considered or decided. It was also found that the appellant had failed to refer to any provision of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 or the rules made thereunder to show that in case a meeting is convened for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’then the same has to be necessarily held on the date fixed. The relevant extract from the order of the learned Single Judge would reads as under:-

“6. In the present case as well, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier convened meeting vide notice (Annexure P-3) was

never held, therefore, the ‘No Confidence Motion’against the petitioner was neither put to the house nor it was considered or decided.

6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to indicate any provision under the 1994 Act or the rules made thereunder that in case, a meeting is convened for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’then the same has to be necessarily held on the date fixed.

6.2 Since the earlier convened meeting for 29.08.2024 was never held and there was no consideration or decision on ‘No Confidence

HIMANSHU 2025.02.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

LPA-552-2025

-3-

Motion’, therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate

her claim on the basis of the first proviso to Section 62(1) of the 1994 Act and neither, it can be held that the meeting convened vide letter/notice dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) for 12.11.2024 for considering the motion of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner is illegal.

6.3 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.”

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 63 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 inasmuch as it has been the consistent stand of the appellant that respondents No.5 to 7 are no longer the members of the House and, therefore, the question of their membership was required to be decided by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that since respondents No.5 to 7 cease to have the membership of the House, they could not have moved the‘No Confidence Motion’. As has been found by the learned Single Judge, the meeting scheduled for 29.08.2024 was never convened. The appellant was not able to show as to how the subsequent meeting dated 12.11.2024 to consider the motion of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against her, was illegal. Even in the present appeal, the

HIMANSHU 2025.02.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

LPA-552-2025

-4-

learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any such illegality.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the above, findings no merit in the present

appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

[ SUDHIR SINGH ] JUDGE

[ SUKHVINDER KAUR] JUDGE

21.02.2025

himanshu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

HIMANSHU 2025.02.28 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.