MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following three important questions arise in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution namely:-

(2.) THE Municipal Committee of Kharar, District Ambala, hereinafter called the municipality, was constituted in or about June, 1961. On February 29, 1964 the municipality by a resolution terminated the services of one Mehar Singh, Water-carrier and one Gulab Kaur, Sweepress by giving them one month's notice. Mehar singh filed a petition under Section 232 of the Act for prohibiting the Municipality from executing the above-said resolution. By order dated March 16, 1964 Shri S. K. Dewan, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Kharar, hereinafter referred to as the S. D. O. , directed the Municipality not to implement the resolution against Mehar Singh, etc. , till the disposal of Mehar Singh's petition. By his final order dated June 2, 1964 the S. D. O. , accepted Mehar Singh's petition and suspended the execution of the resolution in question. The Municipality represented against the same to the state Government. According to the Municipality, the Secretary to the Punjab government, Local Government Department has already called for the explanation of the S. D. O. , in respect of the above-said action taken by him in suspending the resolution dated 29-2-1964. It has been complained by the Municipality that in spite of the above-said communication, the S. D. O. has not submitted the case to the Government under Section 235 of the Act till the filing of this writ petition. On behalf of the Punjab Government it has been stated that this matter is still to be considered by the Government under Section 235 of the Act. It is needless to go into this dispute as it has been unequivocally stated on behalf of the Government that the decision to supersede the Municipality was not at all based on any consideration of the action taken by it against Mehar Singh by its above-said resolution dated February 29, 1964.

(3.) ON May 17, 1964 the Secretary of the Municipality submitted a report to the effect that he had checked the Commission Shop of the Co-operative Store at about 2. 15 P. M. on 16-5-1964 and that on being asked to produre the octroi receipts the Manager of the shop was not able to show the same and had told the secretary to come on the next day "as the Manager was busy with the public". It is admitted by the respondents that when the Secretary went on the next day the Manager was not to be found at the shop. According to the petitioner-Municipality the President of the Co-operative Stores had imported three trucks of sugar within the municipal limits without payment of requisite octroi duty. In the above circumstances the Municipality issued a notice to the President of the Co-operative stores calling upon the Stores to deposit a sum of Rs. 294/- as octroi duty and threatening the Co-operative Stores, in case of their failure to do the needful, with action under Section 78 of the Act. The Municipality then passed a resolution by which it resolved to impose 5 times penalty of the actual octroi duty on the defaulting Stores and also resolved to issue a demand notice. Taking advantage of the clash between the Municipality and the S. D. O. the President of the Cooperative stores filed an application before the S. D. O. purporting to be under section 232 of the Act for superseding the resolution for the imposition of penalty and issue of demand notice. On that application the S. D O. passed an interim order on June 29, 1964 restraining the Municipality from taking any further action in pursuance of the said resolution. According to the written reply of the S. D. O. the relevant municipal file is now not available in the municipal office. The municipality does not admit the order of the S. D. O. suspending the execution of the above-said resolution to be legal.