Kaithal Zila Parishad president’s plea against notice to convene no-confidence meeting dismissed

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Kaithal Zila Parishad (ZP) president Deepak Malik for quashing a notice, whereby a House meeting was called to consider no-confidence motion against him.

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh asserted the petitioner was elected president in 2022. The proviso to Section 123(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act made it clear that meeting to consider no-confidence motion would not be convened before the expiry of a year from the date the election was notified.

No violation of rules

As the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence was called after more than one year of the notification of the election of the petitioner as president of the Zila Parishad, the same is in consonance with the provisions of Section 123 of the Act. — High Court Bench

“As the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence was called after more than one year of the notification of the election of the petitioner as president of the Zila Parishad, the same is in consonance with the provisions of Section 123 of the Act,” the Bench asserted.

The court clarified that the mandate of first part of Rule 10(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules was the issuance of notice for a no-confidence motion at least seven days prior to the meeting. The Bench observed that the notice issued on July 12 satisfied this requirement as the meeting was scheduled for July 19. The period from July 12 to July 18 was deemed to be seven days, aligning with the statutory provision.

“We hold that the first part of Rule 10(2) is mandatory in nature and the same stands statutorily complied with,” the Bench asserted. The court also found that the procedural requirements stipulated in the second part of Rule 10(2) — which included various modes of notice delivery — were substantially complied with.

“The second part of Rule 10(2) stipulates about the modalities and there are as many as six modes through which the communication of the notice was to be effected. Barring two modes, sending the notice through registered post to the members, including the petitioner on July 13 and its publication in the newspapers on July 13, all other modes were put into service on July 12 itself. As on the date of issuance of notice, the petitioner was very much holding the office, he cannot be heard saying that he had no knowledge of the issuance of the notice about the meeting of no confidence,” the Bench observed, while adding that the second part, directory in nature, was substantially complied with by the authorities. Dismissing the petition, the Bench added once substantial compliance of second part was done on July 12, the proceedings leading to no- confidence motion could not be nullified for the reason that partial or part compliance was made on the subsequent day i.e. July 13.