Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief To Municipal Committee VP Who Challenged No-Confidence Motion While Contesting Fresh Elections, Says Right Waived Off

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea challenging a no-confidence motion passed against the Vice President (VP) of Haryana's Municipal Committee, Uklana, observing that he waived off his right by participating in the fresh elections held for the post of VP.

The petitioner had also sought a stay against holding fresh elections to the post of VP.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "the petitioner should have stuck to his claims. He cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. On the one hand, he was challenging the No Confidence Motion being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Act, but on the other, he himself subsequently had contested the election held for the post of Vice President."

The Court further said that the election held on July 12, 2023, emanated from the No Confidence Motion, whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Vice President. 

"Thus, when the petitioner himself was disputing his removal, it is beyond common understanding as to what compelled him to participate in the election subsequently held and contest the same as one of the candidates," it added.

"The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that while contesting the election held on 12.07.2023, he had implicitly expressed his faith in the system. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the subsequent events have, thus, taken away the right of the petitioner to challenge the No Confidence Motion," the bench opined.

These observations were made while hearing the plea of Harish Kumar, who was the Vice President of the Municipal Committee, Uklana, challenging the no-confidence motion passed against him. He also sought a stay on holding fresh election for the post of Vice President in the Municipal Committee, Uklana. 

 However, while the petition was pending Kumar participated in the election conducted for the post of VP.

After hearing the submissions from both sides, the Court considered the question, "Whether having contested the election to the post of Vice President, the petitioner has waived off his right to challenge the `No Confidence Motion' dated 11.05.2023?"

The bench noted that in a previous order, the Court had only directed a restraint on the declaration of the result and not on the election itself.

"The petitioner, if so advised, could have challenged the election to the post of Vice President scheduled to be conducted on 12.07.2023, and sought a restraint order therein, but he chose not to do so," said the Court.

It observed that Waiver is not an intentional abandonment of a right. Rather, it emerges from one's subsequent acquiescence to the position that he has disputed as being wrong or illegal at a prior point in time.

 "This relinquishment does involve his informed and conscious choice that had he not waived off such right, he would have enjoyed the same. In other words, by submitting him to the later circumstances, he ceases to agitate the issue complained against at an earlier point of time," the bench observed.

The Court further said, "The petitioner cannot be allowed to plead that since his writ petition challenging the No Confidence Motion was pending, the same would cover any subsequent action taken by the respondents and if the very No Confidence Motion is found to be illegal, then all the subsequent proceedings will follow the suit."

The situation would have been entirely different had the petitioner abstained himself from the election proceedings. Having not done so and rather having participated as one of the contesting candidates in the election, he is now estopped from maintaining his challenge to the No Confidence Motion, it added.

Observing that "once the petitioner had participated in the subsequent election held for the post of Vice President, which post became vacant after his removal through No Confidence Motion, the writ petition for all the purposes would be treated to have become infructuous," the Court dismissed the plea.

Title: Harsh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Suman Jain, Advocate for petitioner.

Surender Singh Pannu, Addl., A.G., Haryana, For respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

None for respondent No.4.

H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Click here to read/download the order