S L KAPOOR Vs. JAGMOHAN LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27th February, 1980 the State Government acting under section 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1911, as applied to Delhi, passed the following order superseding the New Delhi Municipal Committee :

(2.) . The validity of the order of supersession is challenged by a member of the Committee in this writ petition and by another member in C.W. 282 of 1980. The combined grounds of challenge, as they were argued by Shri Soli Sorabjee and Shri P. N. Lekhi, may be stated as below:

(3.) . The State Government and Shri Jagmohan, Lieutenant Governor, filed counter affidavits, traversing the allegations made in the petitions and the petitioners also filed rejoinders. The defence, as argued by Shri R. L.Tandon, briefly met the grounds of challenge as below: (1) On the correct construction of section 238 in the context of the other relevant provisions of the Act, the Government did not have to give any opportunity to the Committee before passing the order of supersession. Once the facts came into existence, it was for Government to form the opinion about them. (2)The four charges mentioned in the order of supersession were the subject of correspondence and debate between the Government and the Committee from before Shri Jagmohan assumed his office. The primary facts were not disputed by the Committee. (3) The Government, however, gave opportunity to the Committee to show that the actions of the Committee forming these charges were justified, (so that incompetence, default, abuse or excess of power should not be attributed to the Committee on the basis of these facts). The Committee either did not avail itself of this opportunity or offered no justification for their actions. The inevitable inference from the facts was that the actions amounted to incompetence, default, abuse or excess of power justifying the impugned order by the Government. (4) The reasons for the supersession given in the order of supersession do not discuss the explanation, if any, by the Committee as to the charges because no explanation was given and the charges stood proved when the facts forming them were admitted. The reasons given in the order, therefore, comply with section 238(1). (5) Section 27 of the Delhi Administration Act was not mandatory in respect of matters relating to New Delhi. The orders were neither ultra vires nor bona fide in law. (6) Shri Jagmohan denied the factual allegations as to bona fides and pointed out that in passing the order he acted on material put up before him by the officials of the State Government on the undisputed facts on which the order was based. Most of the facts and actions of the Committee had taken place from before the time Shri Jagmohan assumed his office. (7) A preliminary objection was raised by Shri Tandon that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order which was based on the conduct of the Committee and which was directed only against the Committee. The whole of the Committee consisted only of members nominated by the Government for one year. Some of them were Government officials and other were non-Government officials. The petitioners had no right to hold their posts as their tenure could be terminated earlier than one year by the Government. The Necessity of giving opportunity to the Committee to present its case before supersession :