WILSON D'SOUZA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an elected Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Durg, has questioned the legality and propriety of show cause notices dated 08.07.2004 & 16.07.2001, Annexures P-1 & P-2 respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is an elected Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Drug. His case is that he is known for his devotion and sincerity towards the general public. Twice he was elected as Councillor being an independent candidate from the area where only 8 Christian voters are there. The petitioner was requested by the ruling congress party to support the congress and ultimately in the larger interest of public, he took a decision to join congress party. Looking to the performance of the petitioner and his activities soon he came in close contact with the then Chief Minister which unfortunately has not been liked by Mayor Kum. Saroj Pandey who is a B.J.P. candidate. The petitioner has attended almost every meeting of the council and in last ten years, it can be said that his attendance in the meeting was best amongst all the Councillors. He has supported the great cause and work of the Corporation but has equally opposed by the Corporation and inactiveness of the corporation as per the requirement. On account of this activeness of the petitioner, respondent No.4 Kum. Saroj Pandey does not like the petitioner and on many occasions she was threatening him to teach a lesson. It is being said openly by the Mayor that the petitioner would be subjected to some action y the department to ensure his removal and non-election in future. The petitioner was flabbergasted to receive a notice/order dated 16.07.2004 along with another notice dated 8.7.2004 asking him to submit his claim before the Director on 21.7.2004 as to why he cannot be removed from the post of Councillor under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the show cause notice dated 8.7.2004 it has been mentioned that in the meeting dated 30th October, 2002, the conduct of the petitioner was not good and was against the Constitution as he put a gunny bag containing filth on the table of the Mayor and further that in the general meeting dated 18.05.2004 when the Mayor was reading the budget, the petitioner had threw certain papers and magazines. The conduct of the petitioner was against the decorum of the House and created obstruction in the meeting. The said notice is illegal, arbitrary and against law. For such act, till today, none of the Councillors of any Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Nagar Panchayat has been issued such a notice as has been done in the present case. The said notice has been issued at the behest of Mayor Kum. Saroj Pandey. The first allegation in the show cause notice has been levelled after two years of the incident and the said show cause notice does not meet the requirement of Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the said show cause notices (Annexures P-1 and P-2) be quashed.

(3.) I have been Mr. Pritinker Diwaker, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2; and Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr. P. Diwaker, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as respondent No.4 is presently against the petitioner and she wants to remove the petitioner, therefore, the said notices are issued on her behest without valid reasons and the same does not meet the requirement of Section 19 of the Act. He further argued that the petitioner is an elected representative and in the Corporation meeting it is the general practice that the elected members always put forth their grievances and some times even high pitch of voice is also used and even during the course of discussions in order to attract the attention of the Chair some hot words are also exchanged being a public representative, therefore, the grounds as raised in the show cause notices does not meet the requirement of Section 19 of the Act.