Case: State Of Punjab &amp; Ors Vs. Bhajan Singh &amp; Anr

2. Election process was scuttled and the democratic values throttled by a bureaucrat who happened to be Principal Secretary of the Local Government Department (hereinafter referred to as "the said Secretary") of the State of Punjab at the relevant time. Flouting all norms, violating statutory provisions and showing scant respect to the principles of law, the said Secretary deprived respondent No. 1, the elected representative of the people, to perform his duties firstly as member and then as the President of the Municipality, obviously to oblige his political opponents who incidentally happened to belong to the ruling parties (Shiromani Akali Dal and BJP) in the State of Punjab. Inaction attributable to the said Secretary in performance of his statutory obligations and instead ill-action taken by him is a matter of concern not only for the respondent No. 1 but all those who believe in the rule of law and the preservance, development and conservation of democratic institutions with their values in the country. There is no gainsaying that free, fair, fearless and impartial elections are the guarantee of a democratic polity. For conducting, holding and completing the democratic process, not only a potential law based upon requirements of the society tested on the touchstone of experience of times, but also an independent, impartial apparatus for implementing and giving effect to the results of the election is the sine qua non for ensuring the compliance of statutory provisions and thereby strengthening the belief of the common man in the rule of law, assured to be given to the people of this country. Any attempt made to weaken the system, particularly when its intention is likely to affect the socio-political fabric of the society, if not checked and curtailed, may result in consequences which could not be else but disastrous to the system. No person, much less a civil servant, can be permitted to frustrate the will of the people expressed at the elections, by his acts of omission and commission. The law relating to the elections is the creation of the statute which has to be given effect to strictly in accordance with the will of the Legislature.The respondent No. 1 was a candidate to the elections of the Municipal Council, Samrala (Punjab) held on 2.1.1998. He was a candidate of the CPI (M) and was elected as a Municipal Councillor along with 12 others. A meeting was called by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 6.4.1998 for administering the oath of allegiance to the elected members of the Municipal Council and for election of its President and Vice President. It appears that all the elected members, with the exception of those belonging to BJP and Shiromani Akali Dal attended the meeting and took the oath. Congress Members proposed the name of respondent No. 1 and the Returning Officer declared him elected as President of the Municipal Council (Annexure P-6). Despite election of the President and the Vice President, the notification in terms of Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was not issued by the State Government.Aggrieved by the inaction of the appellants, particularly the said Secretary, the respondent No. 1 on 15.5.1998 filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7105 of 1998 praying therein for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to issue notification regarding his election as President of the Municipal Council, Samrala in the meeting held on 6.4.1998. Written statement in the said writ petition was filed in the High Court on 13th August, 1998. In the meanwhile a show cause notice dated 1.7.1998 was issued to the respondent No. 1 proposing to take action against him under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act and removing him from the Membership of Nagar Panchayat/Council, Samrala (Ludhiana). The show cause notice was accompanied by the details of the allegations wherein it wasDeputy Director, Local Government, Ludhiana has intimated vide his letter No. DDLG/S3/2258 dated 21.4.1998 before the issuance of the notification for the President in accordance with the instructions of the Government you have interfered in the working of the Nagar Council and did not behave properly. By doing so you have misused the powers vested under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Therefore, it is proposed to take action under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and to remove him from therespondent No. 1 submitted his reply on 23rd July, 1998 and the said Secretary vide his notification No. 6/16/980-3LGIII/4498 dated 9.4.1999 removed the respondent No. 1 not only from the Presidentship but also from the Membership of the Nagar Council, Samrala.Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned by quashing the impugned notification and issuance of directions to the respondents therein to notify the name of the respondent No. 1 herein within a week. The respondent No. 1 was also held entitled to the payment of costs which was quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

Court's reasoning:
13. We also do not accept the plea of the appellants that by assuming his duties as President, the respondent had allegedly, "flagrantly abused" his position as a member, thereby incurring the wrath of the State Government in terms of Section 16(1)(e) or Section 20 of the Act. The clause "flagrantly abused of his position as member" means the doing of such act or acts by a member of a committee in disregard of his duty which would shock a reasonable mind. The nature of the `abuse before it could be termed as `flagrant, must, in the circumstance be glaring, notorious, enormous, scandalous or wicked. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that the respondent No. 1 in his capacity as member or President took any undue advantage of his position or under the colour of his office committed any particular irregularity or reprehensive acts. Any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act cannot be categorised as "flagrant abuse of power" by a member of the Committee. The mere contravention, if any, (which was not in this case) in respondent No. 1 entering upon his office as President before his name was approved and published in the Official Gazette, particularly on account of wilful omission of the State Government cannot be called either a `flagrant abuse of position as a member or `abuse of power within the contemplation of Section 16(1)(e) and Section 20 of the Act.The appeal which is bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed. We are at pain to note that by his acts of omission and commission the said Secretary has consistently and persistently deprived the respondent No. 1 of the duty to assume and discharge his duties as member and President of the Municipal Council, despite his election from 2.1.1998 till date. The term of the office of the Municipality is a fixed term out of which three years of the respondent No. 1 have been wasted in uncalled for and forced litigation upon him. No law can compensate the loss of opportunity provided to the respondent No. 1 for serving the people after his election as Member and President of the Municipality. We find it a fit case to award exemplary costs and are of the firm view that such costs should not be burdened upon the State exchequer. The said Secretary who is responsible for the violation of the statutory provisions and weakening the concept of rule of law, is, therefore, personally liable to pay the costs from his own pockets. While dismissing this appeal we direct the said Secretary to personally pay the costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent No. 1 within a period of two months.