BAL MUKAND AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the Notification dated 20/09/2000 by which the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the office of President of the Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh violative of the provisions of Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. The petitioner prays that this Notification be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) Mr. S. P. Jain, Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Municipal Councillors had never made any request to the State Government for the petitioner's removal from the office of President. Thus, the Government could not have proceeded under Section 22. In any event, the impugned order was passed mechanically. The contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the validity of the meeting were not considered. Thus, the impugned Notification is vitiated. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents.