High Court Dismisses Haryana's Kaithal Zila Panchayat President's Plea Challenging No-Confidence Motion, Says All Rules Were Complied

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea of Haryana's Kaithal Zila Panchayat President's plea challenging the no-confidence motion passed against him, observing that there was proper compliance with the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules.

Rule 10(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1955 (Rules) stipulates the issuance of notice by the prescribed authority for considering the motion of no confidence at least seven days before the date fixed for such meeting and that such notice shall contain the date, time and place of meeting.

The second part of the Rule 10(2) states various modes through which notice should be issued.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh said that once substantial compliance of the second part of Rule 10(2) was done on the day, the proceedings leading to the No Confidence Motion, cannot be nullified for the reason that partial or part compliance pertaining to mode thereof was made on the subsequent day.

These objections were made while hearing the writ petition of Deepak Malik, who was elected as President of Zila Parishad of Kaithal. However, the members of Zila Parishad passed a "no-confidence" motion against him.

Malik alleged that the members of the house started involving in corrupt practices in public dealings and the projects/grants initiated by the Government, and he always tried to remove the malice, therefore he was targeted.

Senior Counsel appearing for Malik submitted that there was a clear violation of Rule 10(2) because the Rule being mandatory in nature, a clear seven days' notice was required to be issued.

However, in the present case, notice was issued on 12.07.2024 fixing the date for No Confidence Motion as 19.07.2024. Still further, the said notice was published in the newspapers on 13.07.2024 and was also sent through Registered Post to the members of the Zila Parishad, including the petitioner, being the President, on 13.07.2024, he added.

It was further contended that the effective date will have to be counted from 13.07.2024 itself, and by doing so, fixing 19.07.2024 as the date for No Confidence Motion, cannot be a clear 7 days notice, which is in blatant violation of Rule 10(2) of the Rules.

After hearing the submissions the Court considered the question, "Whether the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the Rules are mandatory in nature or the same are directory?" and "Whether in the instant case there is a proper compliance of Rule 10(2) of the Rules?".

The division bench noted that the notice was issued on 12.07.2019. It is the case of the respondents that except for sending the notice to all the members through Registered A.D. Post and its publication in the newspapers on 13.07.2024, communication of the notice as stipulated in the second part of Rule 10(2) through all other modes was effected on 12.07.2024 itself i.e. by proclamation by the beat of the drum, in the area concerned; by affixing a copy of same on the notice boards of the offices of concerned Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti(s) and Zila Parishad and other conspicuous places; and hence, the counting of seven days' period would commence from 12.07.2024 itself, as substantial compliance of the Rule stood done.

The bench found that in the present case in compliance of Rule 10(2), the notice was issued by the prescribed authority for considering the motion of no confidence  "seven days the notice before the date fixed" for such meeting containing the date.

It pointed out that the second part of Rule 10(2) contains the mode and manner in which the mandate contained in the first part is to be carried out.

"It specifically provides as to how the communication of the notice is to be effected and there are as many as 6 modes to execute such mandate. It is settled law that the procedural part of the statute/Rules is to be treated as directory and not mandatory," added the bench.

The Court rejected the contention of senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that all the modes provided in the second part of Rule 10(2) are required to be complied with simultaneously as the said modes are connected by the word `and' and not `or', stating that it "lacks merit."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Ms. Bhagyashri Setia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional AG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana,

Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana,

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for State of Haryana.

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ishnoor Singh Bains, Advocate for applicants.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 250

Click here to read/download the order