GHASI LAL BAGORIA Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD GANGAPUR CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board of Gangapur City for a term of three years in the month of June, 1951, and took oath of office on 16th December, 1951, and was elected Vice-Chairman of the Board in April. 1952. THE Chairman of the Board gave a special notice to the petitioner on 24th June, 1954, that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 121/7/--, the dues outstanding against the firm of Rewarmal Sitaram, of which the petitioner was the proprietor. THE petitioner sent a reply on 13th July, 1950 that he was not the proprietor of the said firm. THE Chairman, however, did not accept the explanation furnished, and recorded an order on the 9th of October, 1954, that as the petitioner, who was the proprietor of the firm Rewarmal Sitaram, had not deposited the amount due against him, he had incurred the disqualification mentioned sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, and ceased to remain a member of the Municipal Board, and informed the petitioner accordingly, THE petitioner challenges the validity of this order of the Chairman of the Municipal Board and it is contended on his behalf that under the Town Municipalities Act, 1951, no authority has been conferred on the Chairman to declare that a certain disqualification had been incurred by a member, and that the Chairman, if he did not accept the explanation of the petitioner, should have referred the matter to the Government. Even assuming that the Chairman of the Municipal Board has no power to declare that a member has incurred a disqualification, it certainly gives rise to a dispute between the Chairman acting for the Board on the one side and the member sought to be disqualified on the other. Under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 12 it is provided that - "if any question or dispute arise whether a vacancy has occurred under this section, the orders of the Government shall be final for the purpose of deciding such question or dispute. " THE law thus provides a remedy for the decision of such dispute by the Government. THE petitioner has admittedly not taken any recourse to the remedy provided by sub-sec. (5) of sec. 12. We, therefore, decline to interfere at this stage.