Haryana Panchayati Raj Act | Majority Not Required While Convening Meeting To Consider No-Confidence Motion: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act at the time of convening of meeting for no-confidence motion, the presence of the majority of the members is not required.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "There is no statutorily prescribed strength in rule supra, thus appertaining to the specific numbers of the requisitionees for enabling the well convening of the meeting for considering the no-confidence motion. Contrarily when the counsel for the petitioners has mis depended upon the proviso to Section 62 of the Act of 1994, to mis-argue that the strength mentioned therein, is to be the one to be mustered by the requisitionees of the meeting."

These observations were made while hearing the plea challenging the notification vide which the Additional deputy commissioner had re-convened the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Panchayat Samiti Pundri, Kaithal, whereas, and the Vice Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Pundri District Kaithal.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the earlier meeting for consideration of no confidence motion was not convened, 7 to 8 members of panchayat samiti withdrew their support for tabling of no confidence motion.

Referring  Section 62 of Haryana Panchayati Raj act, 1994, it was argued that for requisitioning of no confidence motion, the majority is required i.e 2/3rd and since 7 to 8 members withdrew their support, therefore new meeting cannot be convened.

After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the plea stating that the "arguement is purely surmisal and is anchored upon a complete misreading of the provisions as engrafted in the proviso to Section 62 to the Act of 1994. "

Justice Thakur clarified that, as per section 62 of the Panchayati Raj Act , majority is required only at the time of meeting when there is no confidence motion tabled against the petitioner and the majority is not required at the time of requesting of the meeting for tabling the no-confidence motion.

 "Therebys there was a reduction or decimation in the strength of the requisitionees, yet the 2/3rds majority as per the supra proviso to Section 62 of the Act of 1994, rather was required only, for the successful passing of the no confidence motion. Even if the said reduction did not make the requisition notice to thus garner the requisite coram of 2/3rd of the members of the electoral colleges," said the Court.

In the light of the above, the bench concluded that, "especially when the statute does not prescribe the numerical strength of the requisitionees, thus for the well, askings for the able convenings of the meeting for considering the passing of a no confidence motion against the present petitioners. In sequel as stated supra the effect...therebys there was a reduction in the strength of requisitionees, thus becomes inconsequential."

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.

Title: MAHINDRO DEVI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS]

Click here to read/download the order