STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUGNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 47 and 48 of 1964 filed by the State Government challenging a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court accepting two Writ Petitions Nos. 711 and 712 of 1963 filed by Naurata Ram and Sugna Ram and setting aside their removal from the membership of Municipal Committee Budhlada.

(2.) NAURATA Ram and Sugna Ram were the members of Municipal Committee, Budhlada. Naurata Ram's brother Madan Lal and Sugna Ram himself were the lessees to two of the shops belonging to the Municipal Committee since before their election as members of the Municipal Committee. A sub -committee consisting of some three other members of the committee was constituted to go into the question of suggesting reasonable increase in the rent of some 200 shops belonging to the Municipal Committee, including the two shops mentioned above. Recommendations were made by this sub -committee suggesting increase of rent in case of some shops and not recommending any increase in case of others. The rent of Sugna Ram's shop was recommended to be increased from Rs. 11/ - to Rs. 12 -37 nP. and to Madan Lal's from Rs 21/ - to Rs. 23 -12 nP. In the general meeting of the committee in which these recommendations were considered, both Naurata Ram and Sugna Ram were present. The recommendations made by the sub -committee were accepted unanimously. It is not disputed that Naurata Ram and Sugna Ram, by rule 3 -A of the rules framed under section 240 of the Municipal Act, were prohibited from attending and voting at this meeting as it related to a matter in which they or their near relations had a direct or indirect interest. For attending the meeting in breach of this rule, the State Government served a notice on these two members to show cause why they should not be removed from the membership for having flagrantly abused their position as members. They put in separate explanations stating, inter alia, that the sub -committee had recommended enhancement of the rents and there was no suggestion that the work of the subcommittee was in any way interferred with and that by a unanimous vote these recommendations were accepted and consequently the question of abusing their position as members did not arise. After considering these explanations, the State Government removed them from membership under clause (e) of sub -section (1) of section 16 of the Municipal Act by two separate notifications for having flagrantly abused their position They were further disqualified from seeking re -election for a period of one year each. The two writ petitions mentioned above were filed challenging the aforesaid notifications. These writs were accepted and the State Government has filed two aforesaid appeals:

(3.) REFERENCE may also be made in this connection to Letters Patent Appeal No. 47 of 1962 decided on 5th December, 1963 State of Punjab v. Waryam Chand, L.P.A. No. 47 of 1962, to which I was a party.