DINESH KUMAR DHIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper book.

(2.) Mr. Patwalia, vehemently argues that the petitioner has been illegally removed from the Office of Councillor, Municipal Council, Sultanpur Lodhi. District Kapurthala and from the membership of the Council by order dated 24-1-2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh. Learned Sr. Counse has made two-fold submissions. He submits that the allegation of "flagrant abuse of position" relates to the previous term. The petitioner had been elected as Municipal Councillor for a term of five years on 12-1-1998. This term came to an end in February, 2003. He contested the election for the 2nd time and was elected as Municipal Councillor on 9-3-2003. There is no allegation of abuse of position during the present term, Therefore the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiciion. In support of the submission, the learned Sr. Counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sugna Ram, (1964) 66 Pun LR 828 and a judgment of the single Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Mahajan v. The State, (1969) 71 Pun LR 989. In the case of Sugna Ram (supra), it has been held that this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to scrutinise the orders passed by the State Government under Section 16(1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911) with a view to check whether the grounds of removal are not extraneous to the conduct of the member. As such the Court can scrutinise the orders to see as to whether the act or acts done by the Member in disregard to the duty are such as can shock a reasonable mind. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have examined the order passed by the State Government.

(3.) In the case of Satya Pal Mahajan (supra), R.S.Narula, J. observed as follows :-