Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUSHILA RANA & ORS versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sushila Rana & Ors v. The State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-13467-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4691 (24 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13467 OF 2005

DATE OF DECISION: JULY 17, 2006

Parties Name

Sushila Rana and others

..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Haryana and others

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL

PRESENT: Mr. R.S.Sihota,

Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana;

JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)

JUDGMENT:

Petitioner No. 1 is the former President of the Municipal Committee, Kalayat, district Kaithal, and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are Members of the said Committee. They have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash resolution dated August 29, 2005, vide which no-confidence motion was carried out against petitioner No. 1 and she was removed from the post of President. It is primary grievance of the petitioners that at the time of passing of no-confidence motion, the opinion of the Members was sought by show of hands, the same, being contrary to the rules, the action is liable to be set aside. At the time of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court that after passing of the resolution dated August 29, 2005, Annexure P-14, fresh election for the post of President was conducted and one Shri Devi Dayal Mittal was elected as President of the Committee on October 21, 2005. He is an affected party, in his absence, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any rule/ procedure, which stands violated. Rule 72-A of the Municipal Election Rules envisages the procedure to be taken up at the time of consideration of no- confidence motion against President or Vice President of the Committee.

This rule does not mandate that the voting should be done by secret ballot.

Furthermore, petitioner No. 1 was not present. No objection was raised to the procedure being adopted at the time of consideration of no-confidence motion against petitioner No. 1. Otherwise also out of 12 Members, who were present in the Meeting, 10 Members have voted against the petitioner No. 1, which clearly shows that she had lost majority. No case is made out to interfere. Dismissed.

( Jasbir Singh )

Judge

( Pritam Pal )

July 17, 2006. Judge

DKC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.