BRIJENDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15-6-1999 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 17-6-1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioner was Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Kathni. He was absent in all the five meetings of the Corporation held on 30-4-1998, 5-5-1998, 3-7-1998, 26-12-1998 and 30-3-1999. Section 17(2)(c) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) provides that if any Mayor absents himself during six consecutive months from the meetings of the Corporation except "with the leave of the Corporation" he shall be disabled from continuing to be a Mayor and his office shall become vacant. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 further provides that in every case the authority competent to decide whether a vacancy has occurred shall be the Government. The proviso to this sub-section provides that no order under this sub-section shall be passed against any Mayor without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The respondent No. 1 issued the notice dated 29-5-1999 to the petitioner. In the reply dated 4-6-1999 (Annexure P-2) he took the plea that in one of the meetings which was held on 3-7-1998 he had taken leave of the Corporation. A copy of his leave application with a copy of the Medical Certificate were annexed to this application. It was shown that this application was received by respondent No. 3, the Speaker (Dy. Mayor) of the Corporation on 3-7-1998 and it was sanctioned by him immediately. He had made an endorsement on this application as . It is then signed by the Speaker. He has put the date 3-7-1998 below his signature and affixed his seal. The petitioner submitted certain other documents with his reply.

(3.) The reply was considered by the Government and by the impugned order dated 15-6-1994 it has been held that the petitioner had not obtained the leave of the Corporation for his absence in the meeting on 3-7-1998. It is a reasoned and speaking order. The finding is that the plea of the petitioner is not supported by the documents furnished by him inasmuch as his application was neither received nor sanctioned by the Corporation. This application was neither produced in the meeting of the Corporation held on 3-7-1998 nor it was sanctioned. The plea of the petitioner was held to be not satisfactory and it was unacceptable. It was further held that the petitioner had incurred the disability and the office of the Mayor has become vacant. By order dated 17-6-1999 respondent No. 4 Shri Sandeep Jaiswal one of the Councillors, has been nominated to perform the duties of the Mayor.