STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BHAGAT RAM PATANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee took place on June 20, 1960, for the election of the President and the Vice-President of the Committee. It was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil ). In consequence of the behaviour of the respondents in that meeting the appellant proceeded against each under Section 16 (1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act 3 of 1911), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by issuing a show-cause notice, annexure 'a' with each of the two petitions by the respondents, Bhagat Ram patanga and Om Parkash Agnihotri, on December 5, 1960, why action be not taken against the particular respondent under that provision. In the case of Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent, the show-cause notice read --

(2.) AFTER consideration of the explanation of Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent, the following order was made against him on September 11, 1962 -- "whereas the governor of Punjab after giving an opportunity to Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga, member. Municipal Committee, Phagwara of tendering an explanation under the proviso to Section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is satisfied that the said shri Bhagat Ram Patanga has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the aforesaid Committee: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 ibid, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to remove the said Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga from the membership of the municipal Committee, Phagwara, from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette and is further pleased to disqualify the said Shri Bhagat Ram patanga for a period of three years from the aforementioned date under Subsection (2) of Section 16 ibid. " exactly similar order was made on the same date with regard to Om Parkash Agnihotri. Each one of the two respondents filed a separate petition challenging the legality and validity of his removal from the membership of the Phagwara municipal Committee and his disqualification for three years from contesting election to the same Committee. The appellant, the State of Punjab, resisted both the petitions.

(3.) THE petitions of the respondents were heard by Grover J. , and by his order under appeal, of September 18, 1963, the learned Judge accepted the petitions quashing the order of the appellant in each case. It was urged before the learned judge that even if the allegations made against the respondents were to be accepted as correct, which were, however, emphatically denied and according to the counter version of the respondents it were the supporters of Bhagat Ram who had created trouble, and although such a conduct would be most condemnable and reprehensible, it would nevertheless not be covered by the expression 'has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Committee'. It is on this consideration alone on the basis of which the learned Judge proceeded to come to the conclusion that the conduct of each one of the respondents in the meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee called in connection with the election of its president and Vice-President was not 'flagrant abuse of his position as a member of the Committee' by him, as the learned Judge was of the opinion that it is only in the discharge of his duty as member that if a person is guilty of flagrant abuse of his position that his case would be covered by Section 16 (1) (e) of the Act and that 'on the showing of the Government itself the orders made were plainly ultra vires the section even if it be assumed that they were passed bona fide, and that the grounds which led to the making of those orders were neither germane nor relevant to the provisions of Section 16 (1) (e) of the Act. Whatever misconduct was attributed to the petitioners (respondents) was not of such a nature as could have the remotest connection with the discharge of their duty as members of the committee and although lack of decorum and dignity and introducing incitement and unruly element in a solemn meeting of the Committee was much to be deprecated, if true, but that could not justify the removal of the petitioners (respondents) on the ground that they had flagrantly abused their position as members of the Committee. " The learned Judge sought support for his conclusion from the observations of Dulat J. , in the Full Bench case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 65 Pun LR 267 = (AIR 1963 Punj 280 (FBI) but, on facts, that was a case nothing parallel to the present cases, and the observations of Dulat J. in that case, concurred to by the other learned Judges do not support this conclusion of the learned Judge. So, the learned Judge proceeded to quash the orders of the appellant State Government removing each one of the respondents from the membership of the Phagwara Municipal Committee and disqualifying him from being elected to the same for a period of three years. This was on September 18, 1963.