Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who are the elected members of Municipal Council, Nangal, District Roopnagar, have filed the instant petition challenging the Notification dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P-12), whereby the Municipal Council, Nangal, has been dissolved, after the expiry of its duration.
(2.) As per Article 243-U of the Constitution of India, which has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Davinder Kapoor and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 104 , the tenure of a Municipality is five years and the same is to be counted from the date, which is appointed for its first meeting. In this case, the appointed date for the first meeting of Municipal Council, Nangal, was 12.12.2009. Thus, the tenure of five years of the Municipal Council, Nangal, expired on 11.12.2014. Therefore, it was dissolved by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no meeting was held on 12.12.2009, therefore, tenure of Municipal Council, Nangal, shall commence from the date of the meeting, when the oath was administered to the Members of the Municipal Council, i.e. from 08.03.2010. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted, in vie w of the law laid down by Division Bench of this court in Davinder Kapoor's case (supra), which read as under:- "When for the first time, the Deputy Commissioner fixes the date for convening such meeting, it is to be taken as "the date appointed for its first meeting", irrespective of the fact whether in such meeting any transaction has taken place or not; or the same has been adjourned for one reason or the other. Sub rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 clearly provides that if due to any reason, the elected member is unable or refused to take oath of allegiance as required by sub-rule (1) within the stipulated period, then he will be allowed to take such oath of allegiance in the subsequent meeting. This sub-rule further indicates that the date on which the first meeting is convened and held is the date appointed for first meeting of the Municipality. Thus, for all intents and purposes, t he said date which was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be the date appointed for first meeting of the Municipality and the term of five years is to be counted from that date. Holding of a meeting and appointing a date for a meeting are two different t hings. Once a date for convening a meeting of a newly constituted Municipality is fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1994, the requirement of Section 13 (1) of the Act is complete and duration of the Municipality is to be counted from the said date, irrespective of the fact whether in the said meeting the oath of allegiance was taken by the newly elected members or nor, and election of the President/Vice-President was held or not, or postponed for one reason or the other. The duration of a Municipality, in any circumstance, cannot be more than five years, because in Article 243U of the Constitution as well as Section 13 (1) of the Act, the words "no longer" have been used. This indicates that in no circumstance, the duration of a Municipality can be extended beyond five years. The first meeting of a Municipal Council convened by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1994 is a statutory meeting and such a meeting cannot be term ed as special or general meeting. Whether any transaction is transacted in that meeting or not is not material, particularly for the purpose of counting the term of five years of the Municipal Council. It is mandatory for the Deputy Commissioner to call the first meeting within the specified time from the date of publication of the notification of the election of members of a newly constituted Municipality. It has been made mandatory because the day, on which the first meeting is convened is deemed to be the appointed day of the first meeting and for the starting point of duration of the Municipality. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner cannot delay convening of the first meeting. It is the mandatory requirement that he shall convene the first meeting within fourteen days of the publication of notification of the election of newly elected members, so that term of the Municipality is not extended for a longer period. That is why in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, it has been made clear that if any elected member is unable or refused to take oath of allegiance in the first meeting, he will be allowed to take first meeting" means the meeting of the newly constituted Municipality "held" for the election of its President and Vice- President. While emphasising on the word "held", it has been argued that the first meeting will be deemed to be a meeting, where election of the President and Vice-President had ta ken place. If in a meeting, oath has not been administered to the newly elected members of the Council, and election of the President and Vice-President has not been held, according to the learn ed counsel, such meeting cannot be said to be the validly held "firs t meeting" of the Municipal Council. In our considered opinion, as observed by the learn ed Single Judge, the word "held" used in explanation to Section 13 (1) of the Act does not mean the meeting in which the transact ion of administering oath to the members and election of P resident and Vice President actually takes place, rather it mean s a meeting which is convened under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of administering oath and for election of the President and Vice President. It would not make any difference if the said meeting is successful on that day or not, but in all circumstances, tenure of the Municipality shall be counted from the date, which is appointed for its first meeting. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that tenure of the Municipality shall not be counted from the date when all the newly elected members were administered oath or from the date of the meeting when election of the P resident and Vice President actually took place.";