U P GOVERMENT Vs. REDHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will govern First Appeals Nos. 10 and 288 of 1945. Both the appeals have been filed by the Provincial Government against Lala Radhey Lal who was a member of the City Board, Mussorie, from the year 1929. By the order, dated 8-2-1941, the Provincial Government acting under Sub-section (3) of Section 40, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (2[ii] of 1916) removed him from the membership of the Board. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff respondent in the plaint were : (a) A declaration that his removal from the membership of the City Board, Mussorie, was illegal, misconceived and inoperative and that the plaintiff was not subject to the disability of non-eligibility for election in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the said Act; (b) an award of a sum of rupee one as damages; (c) any other relief which under the circumstances the Court deemed the plaintiff to be entitled.

(2.) The learned Civil Judge held that on a true construction of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 40 the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. In the result he dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. The appeal was heard ex parte. The learned District Judge held that the civil Court was barred from forming its own opinion about the truth or otherwise of the allegations which were made against the plaintiff and which were considered by the Provincial Government to justify the inference that he so flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Board as to render his continuance detrimental to public interest, but the civil Court was not barred from considering whether the Provincial Government did exercise its mind about those allegations and the explanation, and whether it acted after due consideration or it acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner. In the result he held that the suit was not absolutely barred from the jurisdiction of the civil Court. He accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings according to law. From this order, F.A.F.O. No. 288 of 1945 has been preferred against the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequent to the decision of the case by the District Judge, the Provincial Government applied for the setting aside of the ex parte decree. By the order, dated 11-11-1944, the District Judge rejected that application, F.A.F.O. No. 10 of 1045 is an appeal against that order.

(3.) Briefly the facts are as follows : Lala Radhey Lal was a member of the City Board, Mussorie, from 1929, and he continued as a sitting member upto 1941, because from time to time the Government extended the term of the Board. Certain facts having been brought to the notice of the Provincial Government, against the City Board, an inquiry committee was set up by the Government to investigate into the affairs of the Board. The Committee submitted its report which was considered by the Provincial Government. On a consideration of the report, the Provincial Government acting under Sub-section (4) of Section 40, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, called for an explanation from the respondent and three other members of the Board to show cause why they should not be removed from the membership of the Board under Sub-section (3) of Section 40. The specific charges against each of the four members were mentioned by the Government in its letter, dated 22-11-1940, to the Com-missioner Meerut Division. It will be proper to quote here the relevant portion of that letter from the Government. It runs as follows: I am directed to refer to Government Resolution No. 5821/XI-359, dated 17-11-1938, appointing the Mussorie City Board Inquiry Committee to inquire into the affairs of the Board. The report of the said Committee has been considered by His Excellency the Governor, and, it appears therefrom that Messrs. Johnson, Darshan Lal, Mohd. Siddiq and Radhey Lal members of the City Board, have so flagrantly abused their position as members of the Board as to render their continuation as members detrimental to the public interest. I am to request you therefore to ask the said members to explain and show cause why they should not be removed from the membership of the Board under Section 401,3), U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, on the charges shown against them below :