R L GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am requested to issue a writ against respondent 1 (State of Himachal Pradesh) directing it to withdraw an order under Section 238, Punjab Municipal Act (as applied to Himachal Pradesh) superseding the Nahan Municipal Committee, of which petitioner 1 was the President/ petitioner 2, Vice-President and other petitioners, members.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order of supersession was 'mala fide' and was passed due to political differences between the petitioners & the party in power and further with a view to shield the Secretary of the Committee from departmental action. Mr. R.C. Choudhary further contended that before passing the order of supersession, it was incumbent upon the Himachal Pradesh Government to serve a notice upon the petitioners and give them an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken.

(3.) In this connection, he invited my attention to the provisions of Section 16, Punjab Municipal Act (which has been applied to this State), whereby, before a member is removed, from the Committee, the reasons for his proposed removal have to be communicated to him and he is to be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.