KAMAL KANT BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellant feels aggrieved by an order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.11989/2014 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the matter of proposing to proceed with certain action for recall of a President of a duly elected Municipal Council under Section 47 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, is decided by the Writ Court.

(2.) The facts in nut-shell goes to show that appellant is the elected President of Municipal Council, Chhanera (New Harsud), District Khandwa and after he had worked as such for a period of two years four months and 46 days, 12 elected Councillors of Municipal Council (namely the intervenors herein) submitted a No Confidence Motion for recall of the President before the Collector. The Collector having recorded his satisfaction under Section 47(2) of the Municipalities Act, 1961, matter was challenged in the Writ Court and the same having been dismissed, this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(3.) Shri T. S. Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Act of 1961 and argued that before forwarding the proposal for recall to the State Government, the Collector has to record his satisfaction with regard to the fact that 3/4th of the Councillors have signed the proposal for recall and further that they are the elected Councillors. It is said that in this case, recording of satisfaction by the Collector is not in accordance with law. Shri Ruprah invited our attention to the note sheets available on record and maintained in the office of the Collector dated 23.7.2012 Annexure P/2 and the subsequent order sheet Annexure P/3 dated 24.7.2014 to say that without properly verifying the identity and correctness of the 12 Councillors who are said to have appeared before the Collector and submitted the proposal, the Collector has proceeded in the matter which according to Shri Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel, is not a proper way of recording the satisfaction. It was submitted by him that the District Head Quarter, Khandwa, where the Collector sits and the Municipal Council in question is at a distance of 82 kms and the Collector within one day has conducted the verification which is not correct. He tried to emphasize that merely showing the presence of Councillors before him and by accepting the affidavit submitted by them and getting their signatures on the order sheet, the Collector seems to have recorded his satisfaction as required under Section 47(2) which is not proper. It is emphasized that for the purpose of verifying the identity, signatures and various aspects of the matter for recording satisfaction, the Collector should have caused an enquiry into the matter and this having not done, it is stated that the entire statutory requirement as contemplated under Section 47(2) for the purpose of recording the satisfaction of Collector is not done in accordance with law. Shri Ruprah submitted that while dealing with the matter, learned Writ Court has placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Mahendra Kumar Saraf and others, 2005 3 MPLJ 578 but in this judgment the question considered was with regard to presence of the Councillors at the time of presentation of the motion for No Confidence before the Collector and requirement of their personal presence for the verification and signatures. It is emphasized by Shri Ruprah that in this case, the appellant is not challenging the fact with regard to presence of Councillors but is only challenging the manner in which enquiry required for identification of the Councillors and enquiry as to whether they are elected Councillors or not is undertaken. It is stated that judgment in the case of Mahendra Kumar Saraf was wrongly applied by the learned Writ Court and therefore, referring to the meaning of the word ?satisfaction? and emphasizing that in the facts and circumstances of the case, recording of satisfaction of the Collector in the manner done, is not in accordance with law, Shri Ruprah sought for interference into the matter.