Kapurthala mayoral poll: High Court seeks entire proceedings of July 8 meet on MLA’s plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed Punjab to produce the entire proceedings of the July 8 meeting at which the Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala, were elected.

The division bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinder Chahal issued notice of motion in the writ petitions for Tuesday.

One of the petitions was filed by Kapurthala MLA and an ex-officio member of the Municipal Corporation, Rana Gurjeet Singh. The other petition was filed by the 26 elected councillors. Both petitions challenge the purported election of the Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor held during the civic body’s “first meeting”.

In his writ petition, Gurjeet Singh, through counsels Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, and Advocates Kunal Mulwani and Ritvik Garg, has sought quashing of the entire process of the “First Meeting”. He contended that the so-called election of the Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor was “non-existent” and that all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were “not only illegal, but are a result of a totally manipulated proceedings which have never actually happened and in a most undemocratic manner by creation of false and frivolous records and without following any procedure known to law”.

The petitioner has also sought directions for a free, fair and transparent meeting among the elected councillors in conformity with the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, rules and government instructions by appointing an independent observer. He has further sought an inquiry by an independent person or a retired High Court judge into the alleged proceedings.

The HC’s order dated July 7 directed that the first meeting be held. According to the petition, the respondents administered the oath to the newly elected councillors but, “without holding any proceedings in respect of election for the post of Mayor (or any other post if so declared),” “straightaway tried to illegally and unlawfully declare the councillor of ruling party as elected Mayor despite the fact that no proceeding in that regard had taken place.”

The petition also said the petitioner, with 26 councillors, was in the majority, while the other group had 24 councillors. It alleged that both groups were made to sit separately and that “without calling for any proposal or nomination from the group of 26 Councillors along with Petitioner; suddenly the opposite group with active connivance of the Respondent-Commissioner declared that the election is over and the other group is in the majority”.

Story continues below this ad

It also alleged that the name of respondent No 6 (Narinder Singh, MC of Ward 35, Kapurthala) “was proposed unofficially” and that he “was illegally declared as Mayor, when in fact there was no proper declaration as such in accordance with law”.

The petition also mentioned that the petitioner later got his phone inside the venue and recorded a live video on Facebook showing the seating arrangement and the councillors present. It alleged that although the petitioner protested, the Returning Officer and other officials immediately left the venue.

It was only later through media reports that some councillors of the ruling party claimed to have been elected as Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the petition said.

It also alleges that despite repeated complaints, no proceedings had been recorded and no result had been officially notified or uploaded on the website till the filing of the writ petition.

Story continues below this ad

The petition also refers to a communication dated July 5 issued by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, directing the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kapurthala, to ensure arrangements for videography of the meeting on the Department of Local Government’s instructions dated June 5.

It alleges that despite earlier HC orders and the SEC’s guidelines requiring videography of election proceedings, no videography was carried out at the meeting.

As per petitioner’s counsel, the general elections to the 50 municipal wards, the petitioners group commanded 27 votes out of a total electorate of 51, including the MLA as an ex-officio member, while the ruling party’s group had 24 votes and that during the meeting, the Municipal Commissioner allegedly addressed only the group of 24 councillors and called upon one councillor to propose the name of their candidate.

The councillor then announced the Mayor had been elected “without giving any opportunity to the group of 27 Councillors for either proposing their candidate for Mayor or casting their vote.”

Story continues below this ad

It has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsels that the Commissioner and the 24 councillors “hurriedly left the place without even electing the Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor” and that “the said process remained inclusive and incomplete and therefore no election has taken place in the eyes of law”.

The petitioners have sought preservation and production of the complete videography, CCTV footage and records of the July 8 meeting.