PREM SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Prem Singh, a resident of Mani Majra (Union Territory of Chandigarh), as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of the Village on August 19, 1973. The whole of the area of Gram Sabha Mani Majra was, however, declared a notified area under Section 241 of the Punjab Municipal Act, on April 12, 1976, with the result that the said Sabha and Gram Panchayat ceased to exist from the said date. For the administration of the notified area a Committee consisting of eight members was constituted vide notification Annexure P -1, dated April 12, 1976, issued under clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section 242, of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the petitioner was appointed as one of its members. The term of the office of the President and Members of the Notified Area Committee, as entered in the said notification, was three years. The notification constituting the Committee was later on superseded and a new Committee consisting of nine members was constituted vide notification dated June 4, 1977, Annexure 'P3', which did not include the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned notification Annexure 'P3', mainly on the grounds that the impugned notification has the effect of removing him from the membership of the Notified area Committee; that the notification has been issued mala fide because of his opposition to the official resolution Annexure 'P -2', dated May 24, 1977, that the notification was bad as it contained no reason for the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Committee and that the petitioner could not be removed from the said office without affording him an opportunity to show cause against the removal.

(2.) THE petitioner has been opposed by the respondents, who denied the allegation of mala fide and averred that the petitioner had no right to challenge the impugned notification Annexure 'P3' and that the government has the absolute right to cancel or modify any notification under Section 241 or order under section 242 of the Act at any time.

(3.) AS regards the mala fide nature of the impugned notification, the allegation made in the petition is that the same has been issued to secure the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Committee, because of his opposition to the resolution Annexure P -2, dated May 24, 1977. The allegation of the petitioner is, however, wholly misconceived. The decision to reconstitute the committee had been finalised in the month of April, 1977 long before the passing of the said resolution. Moreover, none of the members of the Committee, including the official members, was at any time consulted in the matter or had any say in the matter. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the move to constitute the Committee was initiated at the instance of the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh. When the matter was referred to him for the removal of Shrimati Shakuntla Devi from the membership of the Committee as she has ceased to be a resident in the Notified Area. Though the petitioner has been accused of certain acts of omission and commission as a member of the Committee, which were derogatory to the interest of the Committee, yet none of them formed the reason for the reconstitution of the Notified Area Committee. Consequently the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned notification has been issued mala fide because of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner is without any substance and has to be ruled out.