IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5277 of 2010 1. MEERA SINGH W/O SHYAM BABU SINGH R/O PARISHAD WARD NO. 15, NAGAR PANCHAYAT ROSERA, P.S - ROSERA, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ROSERA DISTRICT -SAMASTIPUR 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER ,ROSERA NAGAR PANCHAYAT,DISTRICT -SAMASTIPUR 5. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 6. KAILASHPATI SINGH S/O RAM LAGAN R/O MOHALLA THAV, WARD NO. 15, NAGAR PANCHAYAT ROSERA, DISTRICT –SAMASTIPUR For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. For State Election Commission: Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. For the State: Mr. J.S. Arora, S.C.VI, Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.C. to S.C.VI. ----------- 3/ 03/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, and the State Election Commission. The petitioner was a Ward member from Ward No.15 of Rosera Nagar Panchayat aggrieved by the final order dated 17.2.2010 of the State Election Commission in exercise of powers under Section-18(1)(L) and 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 ((hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Act) unseating her from the post for abuse of powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s house was thatched, the flooring was not permanent. There was absence of water supply and toilet. Her family therefore fulfilled the requirements for inclusion in the B.P.L. list. The list 2 was drawn up in 2006. There was no infirmity in the list as drawn up and therefore the petitioner committed no illegality when she also signed on the list affirming the same in the year-2008 as a ward member after her election in 2007. The responsibility for having signed on the list was collective along with other ward members and office bearers of the Nagar Panchayat. The petitioner alone cannot be imposed answerability and liability. Reliance has been placed on (2010) 2 SCC 319 (SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) to urge that an elected member would not be removed in the manner only for one petty reason which was a minor irregularity in discharge of duties by the executive in the manner done as the electorate which returned the petitioner to power had no opportunity/liberty to participate. Reliance has further been placed on (2001) 6 SCC 260 (TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS). Learned counsel for the State and the State Election Commission have supported the impugned order dated 17.2.2010 that it required no interference as certain facts to be noticed hereinafter in the order, are not in dispute and those facts are go to the very root of the matter. The nature of abuse of power committed 3 can not be classified as petty or minor. The petitioner was elected as a ward member in 2007. The list of persons incorporated in the B.P.L. List and which included the name of her family was signed by her also as one of the ward members in 2008. This led to a complaint by private Respondent No.6. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner duly replied by her at Annexure-6. Neither the show cause nor the writ petition disputes or denies the finding in the impugned order that the husband of the petitioner possessed a motorcycle as also a Maruti Car. That the petitioner had purchased the lands measuring 1 Katha, 10 Dhoors worth Rs.10,00,000/- on 1.9.2008. Obviously, providence was smiling on the petitioner after her elections as a ward member in 2007. Again on 30.12.2009 she purchased further 11 Katthas of lands confirmed by the District Magistrate. What information of assets was furnished by the petitioner before the State Election Commission when she was contesting as a Ward member need not be gone into. Likewise, it need not be gone into as to what was the status of the petitioner in the year-2006. The crucial question for determination by the Court is what was the status of the petitioner when as a Ward member she signed the 4 list of beneficiaries under the B.P.L. and whether her family qualified for the same on the date that she was signing the document. Was she fully aware of the nature of her act ? Whatever may have been the status of the petitioner in the year-2006 she decided to contest the ward elections for the Nagar Panchayat in 2007. The Court takes judicial notice of the manner in which elections are contested even at the level of the Nagar Panchayat when money power plays a very important role given the various benefits that flow not only from the position of power which may follow from the same. The Court finds it a little difficult to appreciate that a person may have an annual income of Rs.2,500/- onwards, live in a thatched house with no proper water supply or a toilet and still not deny that the person possesses a motorcycle and a Maruti Car, has the capacity to buy lands worth Rs.10,00,000/- and has enough resources being generated to make further investments in another 11 Katthas of land in 2009. All these are of course more than sufficient indications of the much well off status of the petitioner and her family well beyond the qualification of a person under the B.P.L. The submission that irrespective of other considerations if the petitioner was living in a thatched 5 house with no water supply and toilet she was eligible to be categorized as a B.P.L. is preposterous for the Court to accept. If it were so, the petitioner was clearly resorting to a camouflage which in any event the Court finds difficult to accept. The issue is much larger of probity in public life. Had the petitioner abstained from signing the list of B.P.L. persons in the year-2008 because her family figured therein, different considerations may have arisen. But, when power dissolved into absolute power where the petitioner thought that she was the law and misused her official position not for any social benefit, but for a personal gain fully conscious of the ineligibility on the date that she was signing the list, there can be no doubt that she abused her position as a ward member. Emphasising the need for probity in public life it has been observed in R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jay alalitha,(2004) 2 SCC 9 at paragraph 59 : - “59…..Persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards of probity and, particularly, when there is likely to be even the least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values have now dwindled and instances of persons holding high 6 elective offices indulging in self- aggrandisement by utilising government property or in distribution of the largesse of the Government to their own favourites or for certain quid pro quo are on the increase. We have to strongly condemn such actions. Good ethical behaviour on the part of those who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self-imposed discipline……” A person elected to a post carries a much higher degree of responsibility to live up to the expectations of the trust placed in him/her by the electorate. If such a person in stead of fulfilling the purpose for which the electorate returned the person to powers turns it into a licence for self advancement and self aggrandizement, there can be no better explanation for the same than a case of gross abuse of powers. The case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma and Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra) relied upon by the petitioner are completely distinguishable on their own facts. Both of them related to discharge of duties as an elected person in the elected office. There were no consideration on questions therein with regard to misuse of the official position for self-advancement and self-aggrandizement. They have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7 In Karnail Singh v. Darshan Singh, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 760 Sarpanch abused his position to acquire properties for himself. It was held to be a case of abuse of powers noticed at paragraph 6 as follows :- “6…It would also be clear that Atma Ram appears to have misused his office and obtained fictitious and collusive decrees in the names of his supporters and had appropriated valuable 86 acres 2 kanals of the panchayat land for his personal benefit. The Government appears to have thought that such a misuse or abuse of the power should be prevented by amalgamating two panchayats…..” Section-18(1)(m) of the Act specifically talks of abuse of powers. The Court holds that there can be no better a case of abuse of powers than the present where an elected person sought to turn the post into an individual advantage in gross violation of the basic tenets of a civil society, the facts not being in dispute. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.2.2010. The application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)