BALDEV SINGH GANDHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-116
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
February 14,2002
BALDEV SINGH GANDHI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
M H DEVENDRAPPA VS. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [DISTINGUISHED]Cited Judgements :-
JAYENDRASINH YASHAVANTSINH SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-251] [REFERRED TO]FATEHVEER SINGH RAGHAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-421] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJ VEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-271] [REFERRED TO]
Satish Yadav VS. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-227] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHARAN LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA SINGH VS. COLLECTOR KANPUR DEHAT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LAXMAN DEBBARMA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME (JAIL) DEPARTMENT AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MADHU MIA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2013-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHOO DEO SINGH RAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-240] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV SHANKAR EKBOTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHENDU KUMAR MOHANTY VS. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ORI)-2012-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
NITINKUMAR M BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL LABOUR UNION ANANT BHUVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-210] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD [LAWS(SC)-2012-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-483] [REFERRED TO]
SUREKHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH MISHRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ VEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-326] [REFERRED]
SHYAMLAL TIWARI VS. MANAGER DIRECTOR, CHHATTISGARH KHADI GRAMODYOG BOARD [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT BUILDERS VS. MOHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-456] [REFERRED TO]
JAYENDRASINH YASHAVANTSINH SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-10-826] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
PARESH NATH SHARMA VS. UOI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVESH KAMLESHBHAI PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(GJH)-2023-3-448] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SHARMA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM PADA DAS VS. BOARD OF PRACTICAL TRAINING EASTERN REGION [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-343] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTIBEN VASHRAMBHAI GALCHAR VS. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPALITIES ADMINISTRATION GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS VS. RAJ MANI SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-339] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV BHUSHAN DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-471] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA SINGAL VS. SECRETARY GEN (LOK SABHA) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
M M MALHOTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDU VS. COLLECTOR-CUM-DCP-MGNREGS, RAYAGADA [LAWS(ORI)-2021-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR JAISWAL VS. U P STATE SUGAR CORP LTD & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-157] [REFERRED TO]
UJESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPALITIES GUJARAT STATE [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-1270] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. CHAIRMAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALIGARH GRAMIN BANK ALIGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
MECHINENI KISHAN RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
EX-CT NARDEV VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-349] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H.S.ROORKIWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-347] [REFERRED TO]
NONGMAITHEM RAJEN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA VERMA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR ANDOTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA VERMA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR ANDOTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS VS. SRI CHUNNU KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
MURALI VS. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-316] [REFERRED TO]
P. RAM CHANDRA REDDY VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT [LAWS(APH)-2022-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
A P SATISH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
T C JINDGAR VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-334] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-325] [REFERRED TO]
HUZBAR UDDIN KHAN VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-200] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Municipal Council, Jandiala Guru, district Amritsar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'), is established and constituted under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the last election for constituting the Council, the appellant herein was elected as a Municipal Councilor (in short as 'Councilor') from Ward No. 3 of the Council. In the year 1998, the Council prepared and finalised the house tax assessment list for all buildings within its limit indicating therein the value of the buildings and the amount of tax assessed thereto. The total revenue receipt out of the said levy was nearly ten lacs. However, out of the said gross receipt, a sum of Rs. six lacs was sought to be assessed and recovered as house tax from the houses falling within Ward No. 3 from where the appellant was elected. When the said fact came to the notice, the appellant publicly criticised the house tax assessment list as being illegal and arbitrary. A writ petition was also filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the said house tax assessment list as prepared and finalised by the Council. It is alleged that the then Chairman of the Assessment Committee nourished ill-will against the appellant and, therefore, he made a complaint to the Government for his removal from the Council. It is alleged that on the basis of the said complaint, the State Government served a show cause notice on the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Council under Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 16 of the Act. The charges levelled against the appellant are extracted below :
"Executive Officer Nagar Council, Jandiala Guru has reported vide his office letter No. 99/1111 dated 14-9-1999 that Nagar Council acting as per new directions and after completing survey for House tax had decided 90% cases of the House Tax by 30-3-1990. Nobody has opposed the house tax except you from the whole city. You have also issued a pamphlet in which you have made allegation that the Nagar Council is collecting the house tax as per its own wish and you have appealed to the residents that the objections regarding house tax be given to you and your M.C. colleagues between 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 9-4-1999 in the office of the Nagar Council so as appropriate steps can be taken to stop the arbitrariness of the Nagar Council. You have also got it announced through speaker in the city and you stayed in the office of the Nagar Council to hear the objections regarding house tax. Only 10-15 persons met you. Due to this the Nagar Council had suffered great difficulty in collection of house tax from the people.
Due to the facts as mentioned above Nagar Council, Jandiala Guri has suffered difficulty while collecting the house tax and as a result of which financial loss has been caused to the Nagar Council. Therefore you have violated Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Therefore, there is a proposal to remove you from the membership of Nagar Council, Jandiala Guru u/S. 16(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911."
(3.)On receipt of the said show cause notice, the appellant furnished an explanation. In the said explanation the appellant denied that he had either flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Council or committed any misconduct as a result of which the Council was put to any financial loss. It was also alleged therein that the show cause notice was mala fide. It was also stated therein that it was out of sheer ill-will that his constituency was picked up for arbitrary and excessive taxation and, therefore, as a representative of the said Ward, he protested against the house tax assessment list prepared by the Committee. The Government of Punjab by an order dated 25-8-1999 removed the appellant from the office of the Council under Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 16 of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
(2.)Municipal Council, Jandiala Guru, district Amritsar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'), is established and constituted under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the last election for constituting the Council, the appellant herein was elected as a Municipal Councilor (in short as 'Councilor') from Ward No. 3 of the Council. In the year 1998, the Council prepared and finalised the house tax assessment list for all buildings within its limit indicating therein the value of the buildings and the amount of tax assessed thereto. The total revenue receipt out of the said levy was nearly ten lacs. However, out of the said gross receipt, a sum of Rs. six lacs was sought to be assessed and recovered as house tax from the houses falling within Ward No. 3 from where the appellant was elected. When the said fact came to the notice, the appellant publicly criticised the house tax assessment list as being illegal and arbitrary. A writ petition was also filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the said house tax assessment list as prepared and finalised by the Council. It is alleged that the then Chairman of the Assessment Committee nourished ill-will against the appellant and, therefore, he made a complaint to the Government for his removal from the Council. It is alleged that on the basis of the said complaint, the State Government served a show cause notice on the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Council under Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 16 of the Act. The charges levelled against the appellant are extracted below :
"Executive Officer Nagar Council, Jandiala Guru has reported vide his office letter No. 99/1111 dated 14-9-1999 that Nagar Council acting as per new directions and after completing survey for House tax had decided 90% cases of the House Tax by 30-3-1990. Nobody has opposed the house tax except you from the whole city. You have also issued a pamphlet in which you have made allegation that the Nagar Council is collecting the house tax as per its own wish and you have appealed to the residents that the objections regarding house tax be given to you and your M.C. colleagues between 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 9-4-1999 in the office of the Nagar Council so as appropriate steps can be taken to stop the arbitrariness of the Nagar Council. You have also got it announced through speaker in the city and you stayed in the office of the Nagar Council to hear the objections regarding house tax. Only 10-15 persons met you. Due to this the Nagar Council had suffered great difficulty in collection of house tax from the people.
Due to the facts as mentioned above Nagar Council, Jandiala Guri has suffered difficulty while collecting the house tax and as a result of which financial loss has been caused to the Nagar Council. Therefore you have violated Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Therefore, there is a proposal to remove you from the membership of Nagar Council, Jandiala Guru u/S. 16(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911."
(3.)On receipt of the said show cause notice, the appellant furnished an explanation. In the said explanation the appellant denied that he had either flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Council or committed any misconduct as a result of which the Council was put to any financial loss. It was also alleged therein that the show cause notice was mala fide. It was also stated therein that it was out of sheer ill-will that his constituency was picked up for arbitrary and excessive taxation and, therefore, as a representative of the said Ward, he protested against the house tax assessment list prepared by the Committee. The Government of Punjab by an order dated 25-8-1999 removed the appellant from the office of the Council under Cl. (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 16 of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.