RAMDAS RAMANJU DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question which arises for consideration in this rule is as to whether respondent no. 1, the State of West Bengal could validly supersede the Commissioners of the Chandrakona Municipality in exercise of its powers under section 553 of the Bengal Municipal Act without giving any opportunity to such Commissioners to show cause against such action. The eight petitioners are disputing validity of two orders both dated April 28, 1972 passed by the State government-one superseding the Commissioners under section 553 of the Act and the other investing the local Block development officer with all the powers of the Commissioners under section 554 (l) (bb ).

(2.) THE petitioners along with respondents 6 and 7 being elected commissioners of the Chandrakona Municipality assumed office on April 22, 1968. Petitioner No. 1 was elected the Chair man and the respondent No. 7 was elected Vice Chairman. Petitioner No. 1 delegated all his powers to the respondent No. 7 under section 52 of the act. Various amounts were advanced from time to time by the Municipality to respondent No. 7 on different heads of expenditures which the said respondent No. 7 failed to account for. A representation was received from the employees also complaining about the various irregularities committed by respondent No. 7. On June 28, 1971, the powers delegated to respondent No. 7 were withdrawn and the Commissioners gave a notice to respondent No. 7 far removing him from the office of Vice Chairman. At a duly convened meeting held on September 4, 1971 respondent no. 7 was removed from the office of vice-chairman. The Commissioners lodged an information with the police station as against respondent No. 7 complaining of various illegalities and misappropriation of funds. On a similar complaint lodged with the District Magistrate by the Commissioners an enquiry was made through a Deputy magistrate who on an enquiry found respondent No. 7 guilty of misappropriation of Municipal Funds and properties. All these event took place in or about august / September 1971. In the mean time as the tenure of office of the commissioners was coming to an end necessary arguments for the general election was, being made. Date of such election was notified but was adjourned on a few occasions and ultimately it was fixed for September 24, 1972. Preliminary electoral rolls were published on April 20, 1972. Objections were invited and received by the Municipality when the Commissioners were served with the impugned order dated April 28, 1972. The Order is set out here-under:-Government of West Bengal department of Municipal Services order no. 2451/mim-65/71. Dated, Calcutta, the 28. 4. 1972

(3.) WHEREAS in the opinion of the governor the Commissioners of the chandrakona Municipality- (1) have shown in competency to perform the duties imposed on them by an under the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 (Bengal Act XV of 1932 ). (a) in not being able to exercise effective supervision and control on the action of the Vice-chairman of the said Municipality who (i)abused and misused the powers of the Chairman delegated to the service-Chairman under the provisions of the said Act by misappropriating the municipal fund meant for the salary of the employees of the said municipality. (ii) took advances from the municipal fund on different occasions for work of the said municipality but the advances have not been adjusted fully and the rules governing municipal accounts have thereby been violated. (iii) removed some properties of the said municipality to his own house and has not returned the said properties. (b) in not being able to check the serious deterioration in the administration of the said Municipality caused by party faction which has adversely affected the efficiency of the said Municipality and has allowed its employees to take advantage of the internecine dissensions and to indulge in ulterior politics to the detriment of their normal duties and the interests of the rate-payers; (2) have persistently made de fault in the performance of the duties imposed on them by and under the said act and have exceeded and abused their powers- (i) by utilising govt. grants for purposes other than for which the grants were made; (ii) by not attending the audit objection since 1963-64 in spite of reminders; (iii) by not submitting the Annual Administration Reports as required under sub-section (1) of section 93 of the said Act.