- (1.) The controversy here is with regard to the power and competence of the Deputy Commissioner to convene a meeting of the Municipal Committee for consideration a motion of no confidence against the President or Vice President of the Municipal Committee.
(2.) It is in the context of a no confidence motion against the President of the Municipal Committee, Ladwa that the matter in issue arises. The Municipal Committee, Ladwa has 14 members, one of whom is a nominated member, while all the others are elected. After the election to this Municipal Committee in October, 1991, the petitioner, Kapil Garg was elected the President thereof, which was duly notified on 5/12/1991.
(3.) On 2/12/1991, ten members of the Municipal Committee, Ladwa, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, to requisition a meeting to consider a no confidence motion against the President, by submitting their affidavits in this behalf. It is averred by the petitioner, but converted by the respondents, that on the next day i.e. 3/12/1992, three of these ten members conveyed it to the Deputy Commissioner that their affidavits submitted to him, were forged. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner on 4/12/1992, convened the meeting sought for 7/12/1992, with the requisite notices being issued for the purpose. No meeting was, however, held on that day. The Deputy Commissioner as also the other respondents, attributing this to the law and order situation arising from the incidents at Ayodhya, the day before, on account of which, it is said, that the District Development and Panchayat Officer, who had been authorised to convene the meeting, was put on emergency duty. A meeting was, therefore, convened again, this time for 4/01/1993 and it was at this meeting that all the II members of the Municipal Committee attending it, voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter the petitioner submitted his resignation (Annexure R6) to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who had been authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to convene the meeting that day. This resignation was, however, not accepted, as on the next day, the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner not to do so and also on account of the interim order of this Court that the result of the meeting be not declared.;