Shimla, Dec 5
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma on December 2, 2024, set aside a communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, concerning the handling of a no-confidence motion.
The judgment underscores the procedural obligations outlined in the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, and the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015, emphasizing the necessity of placing such motions before the house for deliberation.
The case arose when ten elected members submitted a requisition on March 2, 2024, expressing their intention to move a no-confidence motion against the President of the Municipal Council. The Deputy Commissioner authorized the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Hamirpur, to convene a meeting on March 22, 2024.
However, the meeting was repeatedly postponed without valid justification. Subsequently, some members allegedly withdrew their requisition via a communication dated July 25, 2024, which led the Deputy Commissioner to refuse to convene the meeting, citing Rule 92’s provisions.
Justice Sharma ruled that the Deputy Commissioner was procedurally obligated to convene the meeting, even if some members expressed their intent to withdraw the requisition.
The Court clarified that a requisition remains valid until it is tabled before the house for discussion. The Deputy Commissioner cannot unilaterally nullify such motions based on administrative interpretation of withdrawals.
Justice Sharma further held that any withdrawal of intent by members should be reflected through voting in the house, as the house is the sole authority to decide on a no-confidence motion.
The Court also addressed the Deputy Commissioner’s reliance on Rule 92, which allows withdrawal of a motion before the meeting. Justice Sharma stated that this provision does not absolve the Deputy Commissioner of the duty to convene the meeting.
The ruling clarified that subsequent motions, such as the one submitted on July 25, 2024, are valid and must be placed before the house for discussion, even if an earlier motion was withdrawn.
Quashing the Deputy Commissioner’s communication dated July 27, 2024, the Court directed the immediate convening of a meeting to deliberate on the no-confidence motion.
Justice Sharma emphasized that procedural adherence is paramount in maintaining democratic accountability within municipal councils.
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
