LAWS(APH)-1991-6-49

S MD KIRAN PASHA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS HYDERABAD

Decided On June 25, 1991
S.MD KIRAN PASHA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS HYDERABAD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks quashing ef G O Ms No. 244 M A dated 3-5-91 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)' removing the petitioner from the office of Chairman Municipal Council Cuddapah with immediate effect.

(2.) The petitioner questions the legality of the said G O and the Notification appended thereto on the ground among others that it is not a speaking order and does not give reasons for taking the said action as required by subsection (2) of Section 60 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no mention whatsoever in the said G O as to whether any of the charges or allegations against the petitioner were proved and that the statement therein that the explanation of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 60. Section 60 of the Act is as follows : "Gevernment's power to remove chairman or vice chairman :- (1) The Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette remove any chairman or vice chairman who in their opinion wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act er aay rules, bye-laws regulations or lawful orders issued thereunder or abuses his position or the powers vested in him. (2) The Government shall when they propose to remove a chairman or vice-chairman uader sub-sectien (1) give the chairman or vice-chairman concerned an opportunity for explanation and the notification issued under the said sub- sect io shall contain a statement of the reasons ef the Government for the action taken. (3) Any person removed under sub-section (1) from the office of chairman or from the office of vice-chairman shall not be eligible for election to either of the said offices until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the council is published in the prescribed manner." Sub-section (2) ef Section 679-B ef the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1955 and sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act 1964 are similar to sub-section (2) of Section 60 ef the Act. The expression a statement of the reasons for the action taken" occurs in those provisions also. An appeal t the Government is also provided uader sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

(3.) A reading of sub-sect ion (1) of Sectien 60 of the Act shows that the Government may remove any chairman or vice-chairman only if it forms an opinion as regards the matters specified therein. Several matters are specified-it may be wilful omission by chairman or vice-chairman to carry out the provisions of the Act or any Rules bye-laws regulations or lawful orders issued thereunder : it may be refusal by him to carry out or disobey the same ; it may be abuse of his position : er it may be abuse of the powers vested in him. The opinion formed by the Government may be as regards one or more of these matters. As regards whatever specified matter the opinion is formed the Section contemplates a clear enunciation of the opinion formed making it clear in respect of what specified matter or matters the opinion is formed. That is the pre-condition for the exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 60 by the Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 60 requires that before an action is taken by the Government under sub-section (1) the chairman or vice-chairman concerned should be given an opportunity for explanation. It is obvious that the opportunity contemplated shauld be real and reasonable. It is the Government which should give the opportunity and as it is the Government which should form an opinion and take action under subsection (1) the Government should consider the explanation given by the chairman or vice-chairman concerned and if the Government chooses to take action and issue the notification under sub-section (1), the notification should contain "a statement of the reasons of the Government for the action taken". I am of the view that mere laconic statement that the explanation submitted by the chairman or the vice-chairman is unsatisfactory by no stretch of imagination can amount to the statement of the reasons contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 60. That explanation submitted by the chairman or vice-chairman is unsatisfactory can be given as a reason in a cyclostyled or parrot-wise way in every case and if that is what is contemplated by sub-section (2) when it requires a statement of reasons for the action taken to be given I am of the view that the requirement becomes otiose-it will not be satisfied in the real sense of it. Whatever the nature of the exercise of power by the Government under sub-sec, tion (1) of Section 60-whether quasi- judicial or administrative-the action of removal of chairman or vice-chairman is punitive in nature and undoubtedly results in serious consequences to and effects the reputation of the person removed especially when both chairman and vice-chairman are elected the former directly and the latter by the elected councillors. Moreover when a chairman or vice-chairman is removed under subsection (1) of Section 60 he is visited with disqualification for election by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 60. It is in this context that the requirement of a statement of reasons in sub-section (2) has to be interpreted. I am of the view that interpreted in that light the statement of reasons required by sub-section (2) should spell out how the Government applied its own mind to the explanations given by the chairman or vice-chairman and should also spell out the specific reasons on the facts of the particular case for the action taken. I am also of the view that it should spell out the specific matter in respect of which the opinion was formed under sub-section (1) of Section 60.