PRAMOD SONI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, an elected Councillor of the Municipal Council, Hoshangabad, has called in question the defensibility of the order passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh contained in Annexure P-14, dated 8-8-2005 whereby the Competent Authority of the State Government has affirmed the order dated 31-1-2005 contained in Annexure P-ll passed by the Collector, Hoshangabad removing the petitioner from the office of the Councillor in exercise of power vested in him under Section 41 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts which are necessitous to be narrated are that the petitioner was elected to the post of Municipal Councillor in the year 1999 for a period of five years. He was served with a notice to show cause by the Collector, Hoshangabad vide Annexure P-8 requiring him to proffer an explanation why he should not be removed inasmuch as he had granted a caste certificate in favour of one Ku. Romsa, daughter of Ramesh Kumar, describing her as a member of Scheduled Caste, though she was not so and such an act of the petitioner was against the public interest. The petitioner filed his show cause as per Annexure P-10 contending, inter alia, that he had not abused his office and had recommended the case of said Ku. Romsa on the documents produced before him. It is worth noting here that the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 prayed for supply of inquiry report of the SDO which formed the base for initiation of the proceeding. As pleaded, the Collector did not supply such documents and on the basis of the show cause filed by the petitioner passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner had given a certificate in favour of Ku. Romsa which was incorrect and such an act did tantamount to a detrimental to the public interest. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Collector came to hold that the petitioner, as a Councillor, was unwarranted and accordingly, passed the order of removal.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government which, as has been indicated hereinbefore, affirmed the same.