RAM DIAL UMA SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are against the judgment of the Punjab High Court on certificates granted by that Court. The writ petition has been filed by Uma Shankar appellant in this Court and raises the same question as in the appeals, namely, whether S.14 (e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, No. III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is unconstitutional inasmuch as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. The appeals and the writ petition will, therefore, be dealt with together. We may add that we are not concerned in these appeals with S. 14 (a)and (b) and that part of S.14(e) which provides for recall at the request of the majority of the electors, and express no opinion in that behalf.

(2.) The question arises in this way. The appellants were elected to the Municipal Com- mittee, Batala in elections held on January 22, 1961. The result of the elections was notified in the Punjab Government Gazette on February 27, 1961.' The new members took oath on March 16, 1961 and began functioning from that date. On August 4, 1961, notifications dated July 26, 1961 were issued in which it was stated that the Governor of Punjab for reasons of public interest was pleased to direct that the seats of the three appellants shall be vacated from the date of the publication of the notifications in the State Gazette and to direct further that under sub-s. (3) of S. 16 of the Act, the three appellants shall be disqualified for election for a period of one year from the date specified. No notice was issued to the appellants to show cause why their seats be not vacated and no hearing was given to them before the action in question was taken by the Governor of Punjab. The appellants' case was that after the notifications vacating their seats and disqualifying them had been issued, they came to know that these notifications had been issued on the basis of a resolution passed by the out-going municipal committee on March 13, 1961 to the effect that the appellants had taken part in demonstration on March 10, 1961 and had broken some glass panes of the municipal building. The appellants further case was that the outgoing municipal committee had been dominated by members belonging to the Congress Party, but these members had mostly been defeated in the fresh elections held on January 22, 1961 and it was in consequence that the resolution was passed mala fide by these persons in order to harm the appellants. A number of grounds were taken in the petitions filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Governor of Punjab. Now, however, we are only concerned with one ground namely, that the provision contained in S. 14 (e ) was discriminatory and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It appears, however, that this ground was not urged before the High Court and that is why the writ petition has been filed in this Court specifically raising this point again; and thus in the present appeals and the writ petition we are only concerned with the question whether S. 14 (e) of the Act is bad as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) We are of opinion that the appeals must succeed on this point, it is necessary in this connection to refer to Ss. 14 (e), 16 and 24 (3) of the Act. The relevant part of S. 14 (e) with which we are concerned provides that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sections of Chapter III, which deals with constitution of committees, appointment and election of members, term of office of members of municipal committees, the State Government may, at any time, for any reason which it may deem to affect the public interest, by notification, direct that the seat, of any specified member, whether elected or appointed, shall be vacated on a given date, and in such case, such seat shall be vacated accordingly, notwithstanding anything in the Act or in the rules made thereunder. Further sub-s. (3) of S. 16 provides that "a person whose seat has been vacated under the provisions of Section 14 (e) may be disqualified for election for a period not exceeding five years". There is no provision for giving notice to a member against whom action is taken under S. 14 (e) and he is not entitled to any hearing before action is taken against him. Further action can be taken against a member for any reason which the State Government may deem to affect the public interest.