SATYA PAL MAHAJAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATYA Pal Mahajan petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee of Dinanagar, district Gurdaspur, in 1964. In the election to the office of the President of the said municipality held in July 1964, the petitioner was elected as such. Notification under section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Act 3 of 1911), hereinafter called the Act declaring the petitioner having been elected as President of the municipality was issued by the State Government on September 4, 1964. On September 30, 1964; one Sain Dass applied for a proposed construction plan being sanctioned by the municipality. The application was received in the municipal office on October 1, 1964, and was referred to the member of the ward for report. His report was received on November 14. 1964, to the effect that Sain Dass had already started the construction of the house in anticipation of the committee's sanction. The ward member of the municipality, therefore, recommended the demolition of the building which had been constructed without sanction. The Secretary of the municipality accordingly served a notice on Sain Dass on November 16, 1964 Sain Dass did not heed to the notice and continued the construction. The matter was considered in the meeting of the Municipal committee held on November 25, 1964. By resolution No. 410 of that date, the committee directed the issue of a regular notice under section 195 of the Act for demolition of the building to Sain Dass. Such a notice was issued in pursuance of the above -said municipal resolution on December 1, 1964. The notice was not complied with. The matter came up again before the municipality in its meeting held on December 30, 1964. By resolution No. 462 of that date, the municipality directed its President, the writ petitioner, to take action against Sain Dass in pursuance of powers which had been delegated to the petitioner under section 195 -A of the Act. Sain Dass then filed an application before the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurdaspur, for annulling the municipal resolution No. 462, dated December 30, 1964. The application of Sain Dass was allowed by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, dated April 9, 1965 (annexure 'E'). Shri V.V. Kohli, Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), in exercise of his powers of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, allowed the appeal of Sain Dass. He took notice of the plea of Sain Dass to the effect that he had constructed the wall on the assumption that the plans submitted by him had already been approved by the committee and that Sain Dass was prepared to compound the matter. He then observed that no clear reply having been given by the municipal committee to Sain Dass within six weeks' from the date of the receipt of his application, it amounted to an automatic sanction of the proposed plans by the municipality. The learned Sub -Divisional Officer appears to have lost sight of the fact that the relevant period mentioned in section 193 (1 -a) of the Act is sixty days and not six weeks, as was the case in section 92 of the Punjab Municipal Act (20 of 1891). The appellate authority seems to have fallen into this apparent error of law by referring to a decision under the 1891 Act without seeing the relevant provision of law contained in the 1911 Act. He then observed that his attention had been drawn to section 33 of the Act, according to which a municipal committee cannot delegate its powers under section 195 to the President of the Committee. Even in this respect the Sub -Divisional Officer committed a glaring error. The penalty had been imposed by the petitioner under section 195 -A and not under section 195. The power of a municipality under section 195 -A is in the list of the functions which can be delegated under section 33(l) of the Act. In view of both the erroneous considerations, he held that 'the resolution passed by the committee is against law' and proceeded to set aside the same. To the above said order, he added the following rider -

(2.) IN August 1967 fresh election of the President of the municipal committee in question was held. The petitioner was re -elected. Notification under section 24 of the Act in respect of the fresh election of the petitioner as President of the Dinanagar Municipality was issued on November 10, 1957. Without going any further into the matter and without even noticing that the term of office of the petitioner daring which the allegad acts or defaults were said to have been Committed by the petitioner, had already expired, the State Government issued the impugned notification, dated April 24, 1969 (annexure 'H'), wherein it was stated that the Governor of Punjab was satisfied that the petitioner had abused his power as President of the Municipal Committee Dinanagar. In exercise of the powers vested in the Governor of Punjab under section 22 of the Act he wis pleased to remove the petitioner from the office of the President of the said municipal committee from the date of the publication of the notification (annexure 'H') in the official gazette. It is this order of the petitioner's removal from the office of the President of the Municipal Committee that has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) TO the main allegation contained in paragraph 11(vii) regarding the effect of the expiry of the term of the office, to which the allegation against the petitioner related, all that has been slated on behalf of the respondents is that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v Bakhtawar Singh L.P.A. 23 of 1959 decided on August 29, 1960, has no application to the instant case, as the above cited case pertained to the removal of a men her of a municipal committee from his office under section 16 of the Act, whereas the present case pertains to the removal of the President under section 22 of the Act. It is then stated that the previous writ petition was allowed on the ground that the misconduct of the member, if any, had been condoned by the electorate.