NIRDOSH MODEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE protagonists on the centre stage can not be oblivious of the fact that in the name of performance they can totally forget the script. In a drama of law better it is the performers maintain 'historic continuity' as a part of sacrosanct duty, being a real necessity rather than march over it treating it as a corpse. Every order by a Court has to be given due respect and can not be overlooked by the persons who are required to act, on the ground that they had acted earlier but due to inadvertence could not say so. The silence was neither sanguine nor golden. The attempt to equate it with the power of unchanted 'mantra' only invites the frown of law. It is utter ignorance, a sacrilege and unacceptable omission, if I say so.

(2.) PRESENTLY I shall proceed to state the factual score. The petitioner, the President of Municipal Council, Waraseoni, District Balaghat has visited this Court seeking interference by issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 17-2-2004 contained in Annexure P-10 and the consequential order dated 23-6-2004 as per Annexure P-11.

(3.) THE requisite facts which need to be adumbrated are that the petitioner was elected as the President of the aforesaid Municipal Council in the year 1999. A proceeding under Section 41-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for his removal was initiated. After the show-cause notice was issued the petitioner filed his reply. At this juncture, the State Government referred the matter to the Economic Offences Bureau for holding an enquiry about the allegations made in the notice. In the said report the petitioner was exonerated, but as that report was not taken into consideration he knocked at the doors of this Court in W. P. No. 624/2004. In the aforesaid case on 26-2-2004 this Court passed the following order:-" short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide Annexure P-1, on 4-10-2002 in which petitioner was asked to show cause why on the basis of the allegations made in the notice, petitioner be not removed from the post of President, Municipal Council, Waraseoni. The notice was replied by the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 on 10-3-2003. It is submitted that after issuance of show-cause notice (Annexure P-1), the State Government referred the matter to the Economic Offence Bureau for holding enquiry about the allegations made in the notice. The aforesaid Bureau investigated the matter and it is stated that the report was submitted by the Bureau in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on receiving notice (Annexure P-6), dated 27-12-2003 appeared before respondent No. 1 and submitted that the aforesaid report of the Economic Offence Bureau be considered by respondent No. 1 while deciding the show-cause notice (Annexure P-1 ). Contention is, that respondent No. 1 is not considering the aforesaid report and is bent upon to pass the order on the basis of the notice and reply filed by the petitioner. He prays that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider the entire material including the report of the Economic Offence Bureau while deciding the show-cause notice. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that while deciding the show-cause notice, entire material in the case shall be considered by respondent No. 1 and if any report is received from the Economic Offence Bureau that shall be considered by respondent No. 1 while deciding the show-cause notice (Annexure P-1 ). The petitioner is an elected President of the Municipal Council, Waraseoni, against whom proceedings under Section 41-A of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 have been initiated. Though there are allegations against the petitioner, which have been replied by the petitioner, but while deciding the matter of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is expected to take all the material into consideration. The report of the Economic Offence Bureau is also relevant in this matter and it is expected that respondent No. 1 shall take into consideration the aforesaid report, if it is available with respondent No, 1. In the circumstances, this petition stands finally disposed of with the following directions:- (1) Respondent No. 1 who is deciding the matter under Section 41-A of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 against the petitioner shall take into consideration the reply of the petitioner; and if any report from the Economic Offence Bureau is received by respondent No. 1 that will also be considered while deciding the matter finally. (2) Respondent No. 1 while deciding the matter finally, shall afford personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard. "