JAGDISH RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEN petitioners who were elected and co-opted as members of the Municipal Committee, Lehra Gaga, impugn the order of the State Government published in the Punjab Government Gazette on January 14, 1982 suspending the said Municipal Committee for a period of one year with effect from that date in the purported exercise of power under Section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that Lal Singh husband of respondent No. 3, Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal (Minister of State in the present government) contested election against petitioner No. 1 for membership of the Municipal Committee but lost and it was since that day that he and his wife respondent No. 3 did not reconcile with the defeat and threatened the duly elected members of the Committee to throw them out of office by suspending the Committee. According to the petitioners, they had repeatedly been proclaiming so in the area. On Sept. 12, 1980 the Municipal Committee through a unanimous resolution authorised its President, petitioner No. 21, to allot certain surplus land of the Municipal Committee for the construction of shops and stalls. As a result of that, an auction was held on Dec. 23, 1980 and 26 plots were put to auction for purposes of lease on monthly basis. On receipt of certain complaint by the Chief Minister with regard to the abuse of power by the Municipal Commissioners in he auctioning of these plots the former ordered an enquiry through an Officer of the Local Govt. Punjab.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners further is that prior to the holding of this enquiry in pursuance of this order of the Chief Minister, two similar but independent enquiries had already been held by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and Deputy Director, Local Bodies, Patiala. According to the petitioners, the result of the above-noted three enquiries had gone in their favour as none of these Officers had found any lack of bona fides on their part but on account of the mala fides non the part but on account of the mala fides on the part of respondents and more particularly respondent No. 3 yet another enquiry was ordered, which was conducted by one Mr. Syal, Deputy Director (Hqs) Local Government, Punjab. As a result of this enquiry, the Deputy Director concluded that the petitioners had been guilty of misusing their power. On the basis of this enquiry report, the matter was considered by the government and agreeing with the proposal made by the Director on examination of the material before him passed the impugned order. The challenge on behalf of the petitioners to this order is as follows:- (i) the order stands vitiated as it contains no reasons for the passing of the same; (ii) the government has nowhere found that the petitioners were guilty of persistent abuse of power; (iii) in the given facts and circumstances of the case, even if the petitioners can legitimately be held guilty of non-compliance of certain instruction laid down by the government about the leasing out of plots though auction, the petitioners cannot be held guilty of abuse of power as none of the enquiring authorities had found any lack of bona fides on their part; and (iv) the whole action is mala fide as there were no reasons with the Government not to accept the finding recorded in the earlier three enquiries.