HIGH COUKTOF' CHHATTiSGftKH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition No. SSS3/2006 '-V- A "ssi PETrrIONER RESPONDBnT'S Btiarn. Sion&ar VBRSU8 State ot Cti&auisgarn aaa ot&ers UTder post for 9^ -3-2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Oil -.'^-9nnR r ^y --/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Wrjt^etition Bo. 5SS3/2006 riS'rmunBK Btiarti yon&ar, wite ot yiin Asliwani -Sosilc3f. 3,sc<i ^fcout 32 ye^rs. Fresident, nagar Faiicnayat, Guc.derdehi, District Durg (C.G) VSRSUS RESPONDEnT'S 1. State of Chhattisgai-h, tlirough 'StTV- DeT5si*t?YifiTit. Q^T Eiiviroiiiiient '~^J f '--^•J-'l^.A <AAAVAA^. •-rJ. •*-'-*-*• '' -*-^ -L/jll^a^l/J^*. ana urban Uevelopinent, Maau'aiaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) 2, Uuder Secretanr, Deparanent of Envirorunent aad Urbaji Deve.lopiue.nt Iwaiiu'alaya, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Ralpiu" (CG) 3. ISEsssT PszLcIi.s.vs.t Q'uu.ciex''d.£l3.i. tlirousli its cmei Muiiicipal omcer, nagai-, panoTiavat Q-'ujid.si^ielu. District Durs (CG) PRESBNT: Shri Saajay K. Agrawal wifh S'saii Sourabh Sharma and S^T? ATiiiTi T-. SiTii?i'OTil. Couiisd 'fcr tl^e QetitiQiier. J ^^ ^u.-U-*.^^.-u •u^.y -^u l^^-l^/t/^ AI/A l^^.»/ ^l/l^.l^.l/^^.l/A • snn Kataii l-'usty, Uounsel tor respoadent ilo. 3 O R D BR t>4-3-2008) DHiRBHDRA MI8HRA, J. Tlie petitioner is an elected. President ot Nagar Panc&ayat, Gunderdehi, District Durg. The respondent No. 2 issued noti.ee und.er yectton 41(A) ot Uie Municipalities Act, ly&l (tor sliort, liereiiiatter referred to as 'Act ot' 19611 dated llm Oetober, 2006 (Aniiexure V-1) to t&e petinoner nienUonuig uiereui Uiat pu enquuy &y tne Uy. Uu'ector regarcinig coiuplauit received agauist ner, all me aueganons ot UTeguJlanties tiave been touna to t>e proved aiicl, Uieretore, stie sliould. sjiow cause as to w&y slie s&ouia not De disqyaimea trom t&e post ot Frcsident, Nagar Fancliayat, Uunclenlelii. 2. 'l'tie above notice lias Deen impuguecl oy uie petttioner on tlie grounds mat:- r (i) flie uotice has been issued by the Under Secretaiy - responaent No. '2. ana tlie same is wimoirt. junsdicUon as it &as not been issuecl Dy tlie ytate Uoyenaiaent; r ^ ^. (u) by tfae impugued notice, ttte petitioner has been asked to sliow cause as to wny s&e snouianot De clisquamiea troin t&e post ot wesiclent, t&ougja tte clisquaiilicaUon coulct be ordened uiider siib-sectiou (2) of Section 41(A) ol the Act of lyoi only wtiile ordenng i-einoval troin tlie post ot FTesident under sub-section (1) ol Section 41(Aj of fhe Act of 1961. Sectioii 41(A) ofttie Act of 1961 does aot confer power to fhe State .GoveiTiment to disqualii^' elected president witiiout i-emoving rum. n-om me post ot presicteut; [uij t&e responclents on tae basis ot ex-party euquuy conducted agaiast tlie petitioner behiad his back, have amvecl to Uie conclusion Uiat Uie ctiarges agam.st tlie petitioiier stailds proved ancl stie slioulct t>e clisquatttiect; (ivj the petitioner was elected to the above post as a Uougress canctitlate. 'l'fiere is no matenal exisUng or groiuid exists referable under Section 41(A) ofthe Act and the notice Jias been issiiect Dialalictelv aatt ttte saine lias Oeen issuecl wifh precouceived uotiori at ttie behest of political pressure wiuiout toUowuig ttie procecture pDsscnbecl; 3. In their reply, fhe respondeiits No. 1 and 2 have stated tliat tlie instaat petition preteiTed agauist ttie sliow cause aonce is uot maiataiaable. 'I'Jie responaents on strong anct weiglity reasons after havuig fonned a prmia facie opuiion t6 exercise the powers under Section 41(A) of the. Act of 1961 issued Uie sfiow cause notice to Uie petitioner, later ou, the euquiiy reiiort has also been suppUed to the petitioner on dcinaad., liowever me petitioner has not repiied Uie sliow cause notice tiu ctate. 'l'&e sliow cause noUce Iias been issued to provide rcasonable oppoitunity ot lieanng to fhe petitioner. writ pctitioa agaiast stiow cause notice is not mauilainable. No cause ot actlon 1s avaUable to the petitioner to chailenge llie mipugned show cause notice aad the petition is preiiiature. 5. Section 41(A) ot' fh.e Act of 1961 enipowers ttie State GQvemincnt to reinove an elected oflice bearer of Nagai' Panchayat and fhe same is to be exercised only after aiforihig sunicient <ii .-^1' 'c'i^. opportiuiity ofhearhig to ffae elected office bearer. The objection of' Uie petitioner Uiat the Under Secretary caanot issue show cause iiotice on behatf of fhe State Goveminent is Diis-conceived as fhe busuiess rules ot Uie Htate uoveininent [Annexure K-'^j enipawers fhe Under Secretaiy to issue notice on behatf of the State uoveminent. "< 6. T'&e question is whether f&e wnt court can exercise its discretionaiy jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning issuaace ot sliow cause nonce '/ 7. ln ttie i-ecent.iuclgment in Uie matter ot M/s. Siemeas Ltd. - v- State ot Manaraslitra1 m, pax-a 1U, it &as been lield. aus :- "10. Alttiougli orduianly a wnt court inay not exercise its discretionaiy junsctiction in eutertaming a wnt petition questtom.ng a nouce to sliow case unless ttie saiae inter alia appears to nave been without jurisdiction as has beeri held by Uiis U>urt ui soine decisions mcluclnig Stale of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm. Daii Shanna and another. AIR 1987 SC yf^; special Director and Anotfzer v. Mollct. (jiiutcan (jhouse and Anoiher (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Anoff'ier v. Kuniseiiy Satyanarayana , 2006 (12) SCALE 262, but fhe q-uestioa herein has to ~be considered from. a aitteiTent angle, viz. wlien a noUce is issuea wiUi preniediT.ation, a wnt petltion woulci be inamtauiable. In sucti an event, even a t&e courts dn-ect Uie statutoiy authority to hear the niatter afresh, orduiarily such hearing wouia uot yield any muttul purpose tsee K..I. Sftepliarcl a.nct Otlzers v. Union qf tndia cnvf others (1987) 4 S'CC' 431: AIR 1988 SC 686). lt is evident in the tnstaat case fhat the rcspondeat has cleariy inade up its niintl. It explicitly said so bom in Uie couiiter attidavit as also ui its purported sfiow cause." 8. English ta-anscript of show cause notice of Annexure P-1 is as uucler:- ^ ^ "^ "Coinplaints received agaiiist you were enquired by Dy. Dtrcctor, Local Adimiiistration saa.d Developiiient, Raipur aad loUowmg u-regulanties were touna to be provea :- 1- Violation otpowers conlen-ed under Sectiou 51 ofUieAct ot ly&l by you is tound provecl. 2- Teaders were not iiivited under the niles. Approval of M'uiiicipa&'ty was notobtained. Rules 5 (5 kh) (cfi) K'ales 6, 7 aad 11 of President iii Council Rules, 1998 were also not loUowed. 3- You stopped t&e worlss by putttD.g unnecessaiy tips iu ttie liles ana it was also louiitl Uiat paynients to ttie contractors were cleliberateiy delayed. 4- You and VOTU- husband applied iilegal pressure on officers aid em.ployees ot t&e Municipalily aiicl conipeUed ttiein to worls: against t&e n.Ues. Irpegulanties ui tne coastruction ot Pay And Use Latriues and in constructiou ot MiUctitlliam. were tound proved. 5- ViolaUon ot yectiou 51 ancl K3 ot Uie MuiucipaiiUes Act, 1961 and i-ules 5, 7 alld II of PiTesident-in-Co'uncil Rules 1998 have beea tbund proved against you. Un Uie Basis ot ttie aloresaicl irregulanUes, you are seived witJi ttie nouce uncler Section 41(A) ol ttie Act ol 1961 aiid caUed upon to sJiow cause as to wtiy you s&ould. not be disqiiamied troni ttie post ot r^resident ot nagar Hanciiayat, Uuuclerdetii. Keply to Uie above notice sliould reacfi to Ifie Special Secrctan', Local GoveiTtnient aud Uevelopuieiit bv 30tn October, 200& at 11.00 a.m. y. M-om. t&e contents ot ttie nonce, it is inanflesUy clear Uiat fhe sauie has been issucd with prenieditation aad, therefore, in m.y consiclerea opinion, t&e uistant wiit peUUon agauisl t&e above sliow caxise n.once is mauitam.able. iu. yecuon 4l[A) ot uie Act ol lybl reatts as under:- r ^ J £.-. ot a uominlttee. (1) 'l'fie Satate Oovemnient inay, at aay time, remove a President, Vice Presideut or a Chainnan of any Coniiaittee, if iiis continuaace as such is not, ui the opniion of fhe State Goveniinent, d.esira.ble in puDlic mterest or m the mterest ot ttie Council or if it is fouad fhat he is mcapable of pertonnnig lus cluties or is worKuig agam.st uie provisions ofthe Act or aiiy rules inade fliereunder. (2) 'l'lie Htate Uovemment may, wtiile orclenag tlie reinoval under sub-sectiou (1), also order fiiat such President, Vice Pi-esident or Chau-maa of aiiy Com.m.ittee shau. be disqualified to hold such ixist for tiie next tenn: Krovicied tttat no SVLCII orcler under Uiis yecuon s&all De passecl unless a reasonaute opportunity ot beuig tieartt is given." 11. Huti-section (1) ot Kection 41tA] ot t&e Act ot lybl empowers ttie Ktate Uovemnient to reniove an ottice bearer ot Uie (Jouiinittee ui f&e contm.gencies m.entioned ui f&e above section. Exercise ot' the above power has serious ciyil coiiseqiience on ftie status ot ttie ottice bearer ana ttie saiae tias to be exercised objecUvely Keepuig iu. view tfae nature of power and ttie consequences tliat Uow ou its exercise and also consiclenng tliat t&e ottice Dearer to be reuiovea is an elected oftice bearer of a deiuocratic institution and tlie consequences not only altect Uie onice bearcr but Uie electorate ot Uie consUtuency. 'l'tis Kower is to 'oe exercisea wiUi aue care ana caution on.ly ui very strong and weiglity reasons and Uie saiae caanot be exercised without alfordiD.g an opportunity of hearins aad ttie provision lias to be stncUy consn-ued. 12. T'he word used ta sub-section. (1) of Section 41(A) of flie Act of 1961 is 'Removal of President or Chainaaa of a Conunittee' however in. the show cause notice ,the petitioner has beeu cailed upon to show cause as to \voy she shoiud not be disqualified (Nmiarit) fi-om the post of President ol Nagar Pancfaayat, ^ fc-^7 ^ Ounctertletu. 'l'iius, on t&e tace ol it, tae word used ui tlie sliow cazise notice does not contOEBU to Uie woret used. ui Uie section.. 'l'lie woixt 'clisquatUication' nas been used. uisuD-section (a) ot Kection 41(A) of fhe Act of 1961 wliich confers power upon tlie State Goveniitieut that whue ordering renioval uuder sub-sectiou (1), tiie State uovenunent inay aJlso order tliat siicti ottice bearer sa.au De disquali&ed to hold Uie .post for the next term provided mat no such order uiider this Section shaU be passed iinless a reasonable opportunity ot beuig lieanl is given. f'l'om. Dai'e rcaduig ot ttie above uoTice, it clearly transpu-es t&at me uotice is, ui tact, luider sub- sectiou (2) ot Section 41(A) ol tUe Act ot ly&l an.cl ttie same lias been issued witfaout renioval of tlie petitioner. 'l'Jius in t&e consictered opiaion 01 ttus Uourt, t&e mipugnecl sliow cause noUce is not ui accorclaace witfi yecnon 4l(A) ot Uie Act ot iyt>l. 13. Froin Bare perusal ot Uie uapugnea s&ow cause notice, Uiis Court is satisfied fhat me authority has ab-eady applied its mind ancl lias tormea its opnuon uiat t&e ailegations agamst Uie petitioner staud proved. It is not in dispute fhat the aforesaid. opinion lias been tormed on Uie Dasis ot an enquiiy conclucted by the Dy. Director which. lias been conducted beliind the back ot tlie peUtioner wffliout anorduig nun any opportunity ot neanng. Therefoie, I have no hesitation to hold that fhe statutoq7 authority' fias already m.ade up its iniud to reinove tlie petltioner ti-om. Uie post of Presideut of the Committee and to disqualify him aad the issuaiice ofshow cause notice is a inere tbrmality. 14. For the aforcsaid reasons, flie uistaiit petition is allowed. Tlie sfaow cause uotice of Annexure P-1 is hercby quashed. !t is inade clear Uiat it woulcl be open to t&e responaents to couduct enquuy in accordaace with Section 41 or any other provision under the Act ol lyoi lor aiiy coiaplaujt neceived agamst ttie petitioner ui accordaiicewifh law. la. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge O^ -3-2008 fl