Case: Manohar Pandhari Deulkar Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division and Others

THE FACTS INfacts in brief giving rise to the present petition inare that the petitioner was elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur in the elections held in the month of February 2002. After being elected, the petitioner started functioning as Councillor of respondent No. 2 Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.On 19th April 2002, respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 40 of the said Act alleging therein that since the petitioner was and is employed with western Coalfields Limited ("the WCL" for short), he is holding office of profit under the Government as such disqualified under section 16(1)(h) of thebeing noticed the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1 and filed his reply admitting the factual averments but denying the legal effect thereof and consequently denying contentions raised by the respondent No. 3. It was thus contended that the petitioner did not incur any disqualification by virtue of his employment with therespondent No. 1, after hearing rival contentions and after perusing the documents on record vide order dated 7th January 2003 was pleased to hold that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under section 16(1)(h) of the Act being in the employment of the WCL and as such, he could not be continued as Councillor of the respondent No. 2, the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The respondent No. 2, pursuant to the said order dated 7th January 2003, has issued letter to the petitioner on 13th January 2003, informing him in view of the order of the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, the post of the Councillor held by the petitioner is being declared aspetitioner has filed the present petition seeking to challenge the above order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 7th January 2003 and consequent letter issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 13th January 2003 contending that the respondent No. 1 has misconstrued the provisions of section 16(1)(h) of the Act while holding the petitioner to be disqualified on account of his employment with the Western Coalfields Limited.

Reasoning: 14.Once again turning to the facts of the present case on the canvas of the abovelegal scenario, it would be clear that the petitioner; who is an employee of the Western Coalfields Limited which is one of the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited could not be held to be disqualified to hold the post of Councillor of the respondent No. 2. When the Apex Court has held that the employee working with theCoalfields Limited cannot be said to have held office of profits within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, one fails to understand as to how the petitioner, a Pump Khalasi working with the Western Coalfields Limited, which is at par with North Eastern Coalfields Limited be held to be disqualified on the ground that he is holding the office of profit with thedealing with the aforesaid cases the Apex Court held that the Government had no power to make appointment of the respondent therein; it had no power to remove or dismiss him. Similar is the position in the present case. Government has no power or authority to remove the petitioner nor his appointing authority is the Government. On the aforesaid backdrop of the law and facts the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained on any count whatsoever. It is no doubt true that the petitioner holds the office of profit and there is profit attaching with his office, but the said office of profit is not under the Government. The impugned order, in the circumstances, cannot stand to the scrutiny of law being contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court. As such, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.