HC sets aside order removing Samana Nagar Council president for being ‘cryptic and non-speaking’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Punjab Government’s order removing the president of Samana Nagar Council after finding that the decision was taken without addressing the grievance raised regarding the legality of the meeting in which a no-confidence motion was passed against him.

The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that the impugned order passed last month by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Local Government, was “totally cryptic and non-speaking.” The Bench remanded the matter to the State Government for passing a fresh order after examining “whether a resolution passed in the meeting – on the basis of which the petitioner is sought to be removed – was a valid meeting held as per the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or not, and then only to decide whether the resolution of no confidence motion passed in such meeting was in accordance with law”.

The Bench asserted: “Once the petitioner has raised the grievance with regard to the validity of the meeting held on February 15 and keeping in view the provisions of Act, the State was required to consider the objection and give due reasoning in case the objection was to be overruled.”

The court added that a bare perusal of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary would show that the objection was not even considered and dealt with, “much less giving a due reasoning for overruling such objection raised at the hands of the petitioner.”

The petitioner, Ashwani Gupta, had through counsel Nikhil Ghai challenged the order removing him from the post of president, while contending that the meeting where the no-confidence motion was purportedly passed was convened in clear contravention of the Act.

According to the petitioner, Section 25 makes it clear that the president must fix the meeting within 14 days once a requisition for a no-confidence motion is received from the requisite number of councillors. Two councillors can convene the meeting only if the president failed to do so within the period. However, in this case, the councillors allegedly held the meeting “even before expiry of the said period of 14 days,” rendering the entire proceeding invalid.

Appearing on the State’s behalf, Additional Advocate-General Rahul Rampal submitted that the government had passed the order after “thoroughly examining the reply filed by the president to the show-cause notice.”

The Bench, however, found the order unsustainable, observing that the objection was not even been considered. “Keeping in view the totality, as the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, is totally cryptic and non-speaking, the same is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State to pass a fresh order regarding the factum that whether a resolution passed in the meeting, on the basis of which, the petitioner is sought to be removed, was a valid meeting held as per the provisions of the 1911 Act, or not,” the Bench ruled.