SHIKHARCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P/1), by which in exercise of power under Section 35 -A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") he has been debarred to take part in the election for a period of two years. It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2012 making allegations that because of the improper discharge of duties when the petitioner was working as elected President of the Municipal Council, Begumganj, District Raisen, the petitioner 1 became ineligible to take part in the forthcoming election. It is further contended that by filing a reply the petitioner pointed out that the irregularities as alleged against him were not committed by him and as such the order proposed to be issued against him was not required to be issued. It is contended by the petitioner that without conducting the proper enquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act aforesaid, only because of some complaint made by political persons, without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order impugned was passed, therefore, the same was liable to be quashed.

(2.) UPON service of notice of the writ petition, the return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 contending inter alia that full opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner, the comments were called from the Deputy Director Urban Administration and Development, and thereafter holding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, order was passed. Thus, it is contended that action has rightly been taken by the respondents against the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. The respondent No.5 has simply adopted the return filed by the respondents/State and has not said anything on his own. The respondent No.6 has remained absent in the proceeding before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents would contend that in fact there was no need for further enquiry as facts were found proved on the basis of the note sheet and as such personal hearing of the petitioner was not necessary. It is thus, contended that interference in the order impugned is not required.