SATYA PRAKASHI PARSADIA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is the elected President of Municipal Council, dabra feels aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents in proposing to recall her under section 47 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') and the direction issued to the State Election commissioner for holding the election for recall of the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are that election to the Municipal Council, Dabra for electing councillors and President was held on 20th November, 2004, the results were declared on 24th November, 2004 and petitioner was elected as a President by the State Government. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is 20 councillors are alleged to have submitted a representation to the Collector on 3rd November, 2007 under section 47 of the act for recalling her. It is stated that this proposal for recall has been accepted by the Collector and the Collector in accordance with section 47 (2) of the Act of 1961 has forwarded the same to the State Government and the State Government accepted the same and has made reference to the State Election Commission and the State Election Commission on such reference is arranging to take steps for election on the proposal to recall the petitioner. Inter alia contending that action initiated in the matter and powers exercised by the Collector is contrary to the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act, petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) SHRI V. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through the procedure followed by the Collector for forwarding the proposal to the State Government, points out that the Collector has not himself arrived at the satisfaction required under sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act and has acted on the basis of recommendations made by the Project Officer of District Urban development Agency (DUDA ). Taking me through the note-sheet available at annexure R/1, Shri Bhardwaj tried to demonstrate that the Collector after receiving the proposal from the councillors on 3-11-2007 forwarded the same to the Project Officer, DUDA for taking action. The note-sheet was prepared and it is the Project Officer who judged the satisfaction with regard to compliance of the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act and recommended for forwarding the proposal to the State Government. It is argued by Shri Bhardwaj that this recommendation made by the Project Officer is approved by the collector and the entire action is taken on the basis of aforesaid procedure. Emphasising that the statutory requirements of sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act is that Collector himself is to satisfy and verify the proposal and this procedure is not followed in the present case, the Collector has delegated his powers under sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act of 1961 to the Project officer, DUDA, which is impermissible under the law, Shri Bhardwaj prays for interference in the matter on the ground that statutory requirements under the law is not complied with.