MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN Vs. SHYAM SUNDER SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High court which discloses a sad state of affairs. The elections to the Municipal council, Chhatarpur were last held in the year 1978 and in the election 18 members belonging to the Janata party, 6 belonging to the Congress (1) party and 1 Independent member were returned. The elected body continued to function till 11/04/1981. Evidently, with the change of government at the Centre and the State, there was infighting among the members and more than half of them resigned. In consequence, the State government by a notification dated 19/06/1981 issued under S. 337 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 dissolved the Municipal council. Pursuant thereto, the State government by an order dated 21/07/1981 appointed an Administrator under S. 328 (6) (b) of the Act to discharge the duties and functions of the council until the council was reconstituted.

(2.) Under S. 36 of the Act there is a duty cast on the State government to hold the election to the new body before the expiry of the term of the existing Council. Furthermore, when a council is dissolved under S. 337 of the Act, the provisions of S. 328 become attracted. It interdicts that the State government may while dissolving or superseding a council direct a fresh election to take place. In view of the fact that the last elections were held in 1978 it was the statutory duty of the State government to hold fresh elections before the expiry of four years. Instead of taking steps to hold new elections, the State government by a notification dated 29/08/1984 issued under S. 328 (6) (b) of the Act purported to replace the Administrator by a Committee of Nominated Members who are ail members of the ruling Congress (1) party. Thereafter, the State government issued two furthernotifications dated 22/01/1985 and 29/08/1986 under S. 328 (6) (b) of the Act. By the first of these, an Administrative Committee of 4 members was constituted and by the second, petitioner 1 Mohd. Karim Khan was appointed to be the President thereof. The members nominated to the Administrative Committee as well as the President are all members of the party-in-power. The only justification pleaded by the State government in the return filed before the High court was that the government felt that the administration of the Municipal council should be in the hands of public men who command respect, instead of the Administrator. We may as well extract the relevant averments :

(3.) The High court rightly observes that under S. 36 of the Act there was a duty cast on the State government to hold the new elections and there was no justification whatever for not holding the elections for all these years. It further observes that the Deputy Collectors who had been appointed were satisfactorily discharging the functions and duties of the council and there was no compelling reason for the government to have constituted a Committee of Nominated Members belonging to the party-in-power unless it was for political gains. We fully endorse the observation of the High court that if the government was of the opinion that a committee of public men should be appointed to run the municipal administration, it could have taken as members public men with no political affiliations, or given representation to all the political parties. It must accordingly be held that the action of the State government in issuing the impugned notifications under S. 328 (6) (b) of the Act constitutes flagrant abuse of power for ulterior purposes.