KALPANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 20/12/2019 and 24/12/2019 contained in Annexure P/7 and P/8. Vide order dated 20/12/19 it has been ordered that petitioner Kalpana Devi Yadav President of Municipal Council, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad has not complied with Section 51 of Municipal Council Act 1961 and has further caused a loss of Rs.7,96,500/- to Municipal Council by misappropri- ating the amount. The amount in question, i.e. Rs.2,65,500/- has to be re- covered from the petitioner and it was held that it was not in the public in- terest to allow petitioner to remain on the post of president and therefore, she was removed by exercising powers under Section 41-A of Municipalit- ies Act 1961 and further barred to hold the post for next term also.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the ground that there is non-observance of basic principle of natural justice. Enquiry was conducted by Deputy Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division Hoshangabad and by Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) Seoni Malwa behind the back of petitioner. She was not afforded any opportunity of hearing & participation in the enquiry. Report submitted by Deputy Commissioner or SDO (Revenue) was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show- cause notice. Petitioner herself alone was not responsible for the purchase made by the Council and it was a collective decision. Counsel appearing for the petitioner also raised grounds regarding the quality of the generator sets. The merits of the case is not to be seen in this writ petition, but it is to be seen whether the procedure adopted for reaching the decision was as per law. It was also urged that allegations against the petitioner is only of pro- cedural lapses and there is no evidence of corruption or malpractice and in such circumstances the removal of petitioner from office of President Muni- cipal Council Seoni Malva is illegal and unsustainable. It is also argued that primary enquiry into the complaint is said to be pending and opinion is only prima facie. In the circumstances, action of removal of petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Respondents had filed a caveat in this writ petition and it was argued by the counsel appearing for the caveator that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. She was heard on the charges and after considering the same, order has been passed. There is no illegality in the or- der passed by the State Government. Along with the copy of caveat applica- tion, copy of order dated 20/12/19 has also been filed.