MUKH RAM Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mukh Ram against the order of his removal from membership of the Municipal Committee, Hissar, by a notification dated 21st February, 1963 made under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 . He was also disqualified for a period of two years under sub-section (2) of Section 16.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner had been elected a Chairman of the Building Sub-Committee of Municipal Committee, Hissar. On 8th January, 1960 Smt. Parvati Devi who is respondent No. 2 made an application to the President of the Committee complaining about some encroachment made in the public street in front of her house by one Telu Ram and also complaining about the illegal and unjustified act of the committee in dismantling a platform in front of her house. On receipt of this complaint a notice was issued to Telu Ram asking him to remove the encroachment. Telu Ram in his reply to the notice maintained that he had not erected any chabutra in front of his house, and that the terrace existing there was an old one. On the report of the Building Inspector dated 8th February, 1960, the case was referred to the Building Sub-Committee by resolution dated 10th February, 1960 the Building Sub-Committee entrusted the case to the Chairman for report. The resolution of Building Sub-Committee was confirmed by the general house on 20th March, 1960. The petitioner made a report dated 20th April, 1960 (copy Annexure 'D') which was as follows :-

(3.) The allegations in respect of mala fides have been emphatically denied in the written statement and it has been categorically stated that the real reason for taking action under Section 16(1)(e) was that the petitioner had abused his position in a flagrant manner as a member of the Committee. The law on the point has been discussed by me in Civil Writ No. 22 of 1963 and Civil Writ No. 539 of 1963, decided today and it is unnecessary to discuss the authorities again. In the other writ petitions it was found by me that the reasons which were given in the show cause notice as also in the written statement for removal and disqualification of the members concerned were neither germane nor relevant to the provisions contained in Section 16(1)(e). But that is not the case here. It cannot be said that the charge which was made in the show cause notice was extraneous to the aforesaid provision or was not germane or relevant to it . It may be that the action taken was somewhat belated inasmuch as the petitioner made the report in question on 20th April, 1960 and the show cause notice was not issued to him before 8th August, 1962 but that by itself is not sufficient to establish mala fides or to show that the action by the Government was outside the purview of Section 16(1)(e).