BHAGAT RAM PATANGA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ No. 22 of 1963 and Civil Writ No. 539 of 1963.

(2.) IN the first petition which has been filed by Bhagat Ram Patanga, it has been alleged that he had been elected a member of the Municipal Committee, Phagwara, on four occasions and in the last elections held in October, 1959 he was elected once again as a Municipal Commissioner. On 20th June, 1960 a meeting was called for the election of the President and the Vice -President of the Committee which was presided over by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil). The Presiding Officer is stated to have conducted the election in an irregular manner whereupon the Petitioner and other elected members protested. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that the party of Bhag Ram, the presidential candidate, whom the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) favoured brought into the hall some members of the public who created a row and even manhandled Om Parkash Agnihotri, a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and also a member of the Phagwara Municipal Committee who was the other candidate for the office of the President. It may be mentioned that Om Parkash Agnihotri is the Petitioner in the second writ petition. Subsequently the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) declared Bhag Ram elected as President. Thereupon the Petitioner, Bhagat Ram Patanga, and five other members of the Committee instituted a writ petition, No. 1095 of 1960, challenging the election of Bhag Ram as President of the Committee but this was dismissed on the ground that some disputed facts were involved. While that writ petition was pending on 5th December, 1960, the Punjab Government served a notice upon the Petitioner under the proviso to Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership of the Committee under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. It is necessary to set out the material portion of the notice, a copy of which is Annexure 'A':

(3.) IT is this order which has been challenged mainly on the ground of mala fides as also for the reason that the action purported to have been taken had no relevancy to the powers conferred by Section 16(1)(e) and that the action taken was prompted by extraneous considerations and was an abuse of the power vested in the Government under Section 16.