- (1.) WHETHER despite the adjournment of a meeting called under R. 5 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, the adjourned meeting would still retain its character of a first meeting for the election and co-option of Municipal members under Sections 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is the sole significant question arising in this writ petition admitted to a hearing by the Division Bench.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute and otherwise fall within a narrow compass, Roshan Lal Singla petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 to 15 were elected as members of the Municipal Committee Budhlada in the general elections held on 10th June, 1979. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Mansa--respondent No. 2--was appointed the Convener under Rule 5 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) for the purpose of calling a meeting for the twin purpose of administering the oath to the newly elected members and also for making the statutory co-option under Sections 12-A, 12-B and 12-C of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act ). After the issuance of the notice for the meeting, it was convened on the 13th of July, 1979 in the office of the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Convener and after the administration of oath to the newly elected Municipal members, proposals were invited for the co-option of a member. The names of respondents Nos. 16 and 17 were proposed and for the purposes of election, the ballot papers were distributed to the members. However, before the election could. be finalized, a quarre1 took place between some of the members who indulged in blatant rowdyism, in which ballot papers were snatched from some of the members and burnt. It is the petitioner's stand that the situation became tense and completely uncontrollable in which the Convener felt helpless to conduct the co-option proceedings and had no other alternative except to adjourn the meeting. It is the petitioner's case that this adjournment in effect amounted to a failure by the Committee to co-opt members which would bring into play Section 12-E of the Act entailing the forfeiture of the right of co-option by the elected members and vest it in the State Government which may then nominate eligible persons to the Municipal Committee. It is, however, averred that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 instead of reporting the matter to the State Government issued a notice for the adjourned meeting of the Committee for the purpose of making the co-option, for the l9th July. 1979. It is the claim of the petitioner that the Committee having failed to make co-option on the 13th July, 1979, no subsequent adjourned meeting can be held for the purpose. The petitioner's stand is that the co-option of the members in the meeting held on l9th July, 1979 and the proceedings thereof are wholly devoid of jurisdiction and should be quashed.
(3.) AS already noticed, the broad factual position is not in dispute The relevant extract of the proceedings of the meeting held on l3th July, 1979 (annexure R/2) graphically describes the rowdyism and the ensuing situation as follows:- "when the counting was being done, Sudarshan Kumar Jain and Kartar Singh, members forcibly snatched the ballot papers and tore off the same. Thereafter, they unbolted the door and ran away. Before that also some goondas came in there from outside and tried to pull the members from one side to another and also they tried to throw chairs on the members. The Police with great efforts controlled the situation and the proceedings for co-option were commenced. Now when the first Balmiki member was to be co-opted, the ballot papers at the time of the counting have been snatched from the table and as such it is proved that goonda girdi was being done. I, under these circumstances, keeping in view of the law and order situation postponed the meeting and before calling the second meeting 48 hour's notice I would be given under the rules. Members were informed that information was sent to the Police for registering the case". It is manifest from the above re'sume' that the basic question herein is whether the postponed or adjourned meeting held on 19th July, 1979 is a continuation of the first meeting, envisaged by R. 5.;