MADHORAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Madhoram Swami under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The case of the applicant is that he is an elected member of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, and was elected its President on 31-31951. On 18-8-1951 he received an order intimating to him that the Municipal Board had been superseded and the Tehsildar had been appointed Administrator till the reconstitution of the Board after fresh elections. Certain reasons were mentioned in the order superseding the Board. The applicant's case is that the order of supersession was mala fide and the Government had conducted no enquiry and had given no chance to the Municipal Board to explain before passing the order.

(2.) The application was opposed by the State of Rajasthan. The case of the State is that there were constant complaints of maladministration by the Municipal Board and it was reported that there was embezzlement of Municipal funds. On receipt of these reports, the Government got the accounts audited by an Accounts Officer who reported that the affairs of the Board were in a very deplorable state. Thereupon, the Government deputed an accounts knowing man as Executive Officer for the Board but the President and the Board instead of co-operating with the said officer persistently put obstacles in his way and eventually suspended him, thus setting at naught the efforts of Govt. to improve the affairs of the Board. It is denied that Government was actuated by any base motive or that the order was mala fide. It was asserted that the order was passed after the Government was satisfied on reviewing the report of its own officer that the Board was persistently making default in the performance of its duties and was abusing its powers. As to giving an opportunity to the Board to explain, the reply of the State is that a copy of the Audit report was sent to the Board which, therefore, knew of the specific instances of embezzlement that had been found. It was finally contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy, namely, filing a suit and, therefore, the application should be dismissed.

(3.) It will appear that there are two main points which have been urged in support of the application namely, CD that the order was mala fide and (2) that the order was passed without giving a chance to the Board to explain and was therefore ultra vires.