KARTAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Shri Kartar Chand who was removed from membership of Municipal Committee, Amritsar, by the State Government under Section 16(1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911(hereinafter called the Act), for his alleged flagrant abuse of position as a member of the Municipal Committee. The impugned notification dated 8th July, 1969, is appended as Annexure A. 4 with the writ petition.

(2.) A meeting of the Municipal Committee was held on 10th January, 1969, for which one of the items on the agenda was the consideration of the budget for the year 1969 -70. It is not disputed that along -with the agenda a book -let of 9 -10 pages, printed in English, giving the proposed estimates of income and expenditure of the Committee for the said year was circulated to the members of the Committee. Business of the meeting was transacted and several items considered. When President of the Committee presented the budget, the Petitioner, as alleged by the Respondents, abruptly stood up, started speaking and burnt a copy of the budget estimates that was with him and all this caused annoyance to the other members. It is admitted by the Petitioner that he did so and his plea is that it was done only to lodge a protest against circulation of the budget estimates in English though Punjabi was the recognised regional language and, according to Rule 3 of the Punjab Municipal (General) Rules, 1918. as amended upto -date, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A. 1 with the writ petition, all business had to be transacted and proceedings recorded in Punjabi in Gurmukhi script. It appears, according to the averments in the writ petition which have not been denied by the Respondents in their return, that there are 45 elected members of the Municipal committee of which 23 at the relevant time belonged to the Jan Sangh party and 7 to the Congress party. The Petitioner claims to be General Secretary of the Mandal Congress Committee, Ram Bagh, Amritsar, and also a member of the District Congress Committee. He was elected to the Municipal Committee in October, 1967. It is pleaded by him that he has studied upto 5th/6th class only and is not much literate in English so as to be able to follow what was contained in the budget proposals. The allegation further is that the President of the meeting instead of accepting the valid objection of the Petitioner shouted at him to sit down and it was to symbolise his protest that he burnt a copy of the budget. The averment of the Petitioner that after burning a copy of the budget he took his seat and continued participating in the proceedings has not been denied by the Respondents. After the above incident, a proposal was moved by one Shri Mangat Ram Vij and seconded by Shri Vishwa Nath Sareen both of whom, according to the Petitioner, were Jan Sangh members, that in view of the misconduct of the Petitioner a resolution be passed asking the State Government to expel him from membership of the Committee. Some other members simultaneously moved another proposal supporting the Petitioner and asking for a resolution to be passed directing that in consonance with the sentiments of Punjabis all further proceedings, office notes, agenda, etc, be put up in Punjabi, and that the budget presented on that day not being in Punjabi should not be made a part of the proceedings. A true copy of the proceedings of 10th January, 1969, has been produced before me by Mr. Sachar on behalf of the Petitioner and correctness of the same has not been challenged by the counsel for the State. Shri Chaman Lal who was not a party to either of the two proposals raised a point of order that no other proposal could be put forward when the President had already put up the budget before the House The President overruled the objection by saying that he had not put up the budget at that stage before the House. This objection was with a purpose to help the Petitioner so that the resolution by which he was sought to be condemned be not carried through. Voting was then held on the two resolution and the one impeaching the Petitioner was passed.

(3.) IT is nobody's case that the Petitioner was guilty of any other reprehensible conduct except burning of a copy of the budget. He continued to take part in the meeting after the said incident. The State in its return does not say as to what words he uttered when a copy of the budget was burnt and the averment of the Petitioner that he only brought to the notice of the President that the budget estimates should have been circulated in Punjabi and that when he was asked to sit down he burnt the copy has to be accepted as correct. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no reasons have been given in the impugned order passed by the State Government as a quasi -judicial authority has no substance. I have looked into the executive file and find that the Minister Incharge agreed with an office note which is fairly exhaustive. There was no controversy about fact and the only thing that required consideration was as to whether the Petitioner be removed for the alleged misconduct. It cannot be said in these circumstances that the Minister who passed the final order of removing the Petitioner did not apply his mind.