LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-124

SUNIL RATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 25, 2013
SUNIL RATHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition No.4788/2011.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are these. On 26.2.2002 a criminal case was registered against the appellant. During the pendency of this criminal case the appellant contested the election of the office of President, Nagar Panchayat, Ichhawar, district Sehore, and was declared elected on 17.12.2009. The appellant was, however, convicted for offences under section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichhawar, vide judgment dated 19.7.2010 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 8.11.2010. Aggrieved, he has filed a criminal revision before the High Court and the same is pending for final decision. The High Court has admittedly vide order dated 16.10.2010 suspended the jail sentence of appellant and directed for his release on bail. In the result, the appellant after spending few days in jail has been released on bail.

(3.) Due to the aforesaid conviction, the Collector, Sehore, was of the view that the appellant had become disqualified under section 35(hh)/(hhh) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act, 1961") to hold the office of President. The Collector, therefore, issued a show cause notice under section 38 of the Act, 1961 to the appellant as to why he should not be removed from that office. The appellant submitted his reply on 21.12.2010 with which the Collector was not satisfied. The Collector finally removed the appellant from the office of President vide order dated 28.12.2010 because of the subsequent disabilities provided in section 38. The appellant challenged the legality of order dated 28.12.2010 in Writ Petition No.4788/2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal.