CHIMANBHAI R PATEL Vs. ANAND MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for determination in these two petitions is whether the State Government can in exercise of power conferred upon it by sub-section(1) of sec. 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) remove a Councillor of a Municipality from office for misconduct or disgraceful conduct committed in the discharge of his duties as the President of the Municipality or Chairman of a Committee constituted under sec. 55 of the Act. The brief facts which may be stated for the disposal of these two petitions are as under.

(2.) Re: Special Civil Application No. 2169 of 1981 : The petitioner of this petition was elected President of the Municipality under sec. 31 of the Act sometime in 1971. The meeting of the General Board of the Municipality was called on 18/02/1980 for sanctioning the annual budget for the year 1980-81. The budget was not sanctioned by the general Board at the said meeting. On 3/03/1980 a Resolution of No Confidence was passed against the petitioner President. Thereupon the Chief Officer of the Municipality wrote a letter dated 5/03/1980 to the Collector of the District to exercise the extraordinary powers conferred upon him by sec. 259 of the Act since an emergency had arisen. The Collector acting on the said letter passed an order dated 30/03/1980 (Annexure A) authorising the petitioner in his capacity as the President of the Municipality to perform certain functions enumerated in the said order After the receipt of this order the petitioner did certain acts which are the subject matter of the charges levelled against him. It appears that the petitioner on realising that he had lost majority submitted his resignation on 8/04/1980 effective from 1 5/04/1980 (after office hours) as the President of the Municipality. Thereupon respondent No. 3 Shri Babubhai G. Patel was elected President of the Municipality in the vacancy caused by the petitioners resignation The new President called a special general meeting of the Board on 14/05/1980 inter alia to decide on the measures to be taken against the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct and/or disgraceful conduct committed while he was in office. By a letter dated 12/05/1980 the petitioner was informed that he should remain present to give his explanation at the said special general meeting of the Board. In response to the said letter the petitioner remained present at the said Board meeting on 14/05/1980. He tendered his written explanation but the President of the Municipality who was in the chair at the said meeting refused to accept his written explanation whereupon the petitioner and his supporters walked out of the meeting hall. Thereafter the Board passed Resolution No. 67 recommending action against the petitioner under sec. 37(1) of the Act on four distinct charges namely:

(3.) Re. Special Civil Application No. 3212/82: