RAM DIAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is contended by the respondent's counsel that the point involved in this writ petition has been referred by Dua J. in Civil Writ No. 1239 of 1961, to a larger Bench. This position is not accepted by the petitioner's counsel. Be that as it may, the questions which arise in this writ petition are of sufficient importance to warrant a decision by a Division Bench. I would accordingly submit the papers to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the cases before a Division Bench for decision. As the dispute relates to the validity of elected municipal members being removed from their seats, the matter calls for an early hearing, if possible in the first week of February.

(2.) THIS order will dispose of five writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos: 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197 and 1198 of 1961) which have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court in which the same point is involved. In three cases the Governor of the Punjab directed three seats of the members of Municipal Committee, Batala, to be vacated under section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, for reasons of public interest by means of a notification issued on 26th July 1961. In the fourth case, a similar notification was issued in respect of the seat of one member (Ram Parkash) with regard to Municipal Committee, Qadian. Likewise the seat of Panna Lal, member Municipal Committee, Dhariwal, was ordered to be vacated. It is necessary to state the facts in Civil Writ No: 1194 of 1961 only.

(3.) THE position taken up in the written statement filed by the State is that it was open to the Government to remove any member of the Committee under the provisions of sections 14 and 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act and that the action taken was bona fide. It was admitted that there was no intention of altering the constitution of the Committee. It was stated that although it was not necessary to mention in what manner public interest would be served by the order of removal, the facts were given which prompted the passing of that order, Action was taken mainly on the basis of the resolution dated 13th March 1961 which showed that the petitioner had been guilty of serious acts of rowdyism as he was present in a party of about 100 demonstrators and his action was unlawful, provocative and unworthy of a person of the status of a 'City Father.' It was further stated in paragraph 13 -