Srinagar, April 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a plea by the President of Municipal Committee Watergam challenging the requisition moved by the councilors for convening a special meeting for a “no confidence motion” against him.
The court held that there is no provision to prevent councilors from requesting such a meeting.
Justice M.A Chowdhary noted that while the Municipal Act does restrict motions of no confidence within one year of an election, it does not prevent councilors from asking for a meeting.
Justice Chowdhary dismissed the plea of President of Municipal Committee Watergam, Amir Bashir Lone seeking to quash the resolution moved by the councilors on March 31, 2023 requesting the Executive officer of Municipal Committee Watergam, for convening a special meeting for “no confidence motion” against him.
The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the earlier resolution passed against the petitioner by the councilors had been rejected by Director Urban Local Bodies for the reason that the same had not been passed after the expiry of one year from the date of election of the President, as provided under Section 25 of the Municipal Act.
He submitted that no further “no confidence motion” can be laid within next one year from the date the earlier resolution was moved which was on August 24, last year.
“In view of Section 25 of the Municipal Act, no further resolution can be passed, expressing no confidence in the president before 23.08.2023, i.e., before the lapse of one year,” he contended.
Analyzing the law on the subject, Justice Chowdhary noted that as per sub-Section 4 of Section 25 of the Municipal Act, a “motion of no confidence” is not maintainable within one year of the date of the election, so, also, no subsequent motion within interval of one year of the last motion of the no confidence.
However, the court when asked the petitioner counsel as to whether the requisition has been acted upon by the Executive Officer or any of the respondents, failed to substantiate or place on record any document despite two adjournments, and he argued that even the requisition for convening a meeting to lay a “no confidence motion” also cannot be moved in view of Section 25 of the Municipal Act.
The bench said that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in view of the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Municipal Act, seems to be “fallacious”, “as there is no such provision to prevent the councilors to ask for convening a meeting, as the authorities concerned have to take a call as to whether a meeting is to be called and whether a resolution of ‘no confidence’, if any, can be taken up by the council for laying a motion in terms of Section 25 of the Municipal Act.”
Justice Chowdhary dismissed the plea, stating that it was premature and without merit, but reserved the petitioner’s right to file a new petition in the future.
“Since, no such document has been placed on record so as to suggest that respondents had acted upon the communication made by councilors against the petitioner, as such, the petition moved by the petitioner is found to be not only premature but also without any merit and substance so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court,” the court said.
