RAGHUNATH RAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Raghunath Rai against the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Local Bodies, Jaipur, and Gauri shanker Khadaria.

(2.) THE case of the applicant briefly is this. The applicant is the Chairman of the municipal Board, Nohar. Gauri Shanker, opposite party, is a member of that board. It is said that taxes were due as arrears and had not been paid by the city fathers themselves. Consequently, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Board to the effect that a list of arrears due from the city fathers should be prepared. A list was accordingly prepared and in that list a sum of Rs. 10/- was shown as due from Gauri Shanker, opposite party. This list was delivered to each member including Gauri Shanker, opposite party, in January, 1956. It is not in dispute that gauri Shanker had received this list which showed that he owed Rs. 10/- as arrears. It is also not in dispute that he neither paid the amount nor raised an objection to the effect that this amount was not due from him. Consequently, on 14th March, 1956, the Chairman sent a special notice to Gauri Shanker in accordance with Section 12 (3) (d) of the Raja-sthan Town Municipalities Act (No. 23 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act ). It is stated that this notice was tendered by a municipal peon on 15th March, 1956, to Gauri Shanker at his shop. Gauri Shanker read the notice but refused to take it. After reading it he handed it back to the peon, who thereafter pasted a copy of it on the shop of Gauri Shanker and made a report accordingly. No payment was made within 3 months of the service of this notice as required by Section 12 (3) (d) of the Act and thereupon the applicant served a notice on Gauri Shanker in september, 1956, that his seat would be deemed to be vacant. Gauri Shanker immediately applied to Government under Section 12 (5) of the Act and the matter was considered by the Director of Local Bodies as powers under section 12 (5) of the Act had been delegated to the Director by the Government. The Director came to the conclusion on 22nd of October, 1956, that though the notice was taken to Gauri Shanker's shop by the peon and had been read by him and refused and then pasted on his shop, this was not sufficient service within the meaning of Section 164. as according to the Director the peon did not follow the procedure given in Section 164 (1) (d) of the Act. He, therefore, held that Gauri shanker had not incurred any disqualification and allowed Gauri Shanker to continue as member of the Board.

(3.) THEREAFTER the present application has been made to this Court.