- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mukh Ram against the order of his removal from membership of the Municipal Committee, Hissar, by a notification dated 21st February, 1963 made under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 . He was also disqualified for a period of two years under sub-section (2) of Section 16.
(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner had been elected a Chairman of the Building Sub-Committee of Municipal Committee, Hissar. On 8th January, 1960 Smt. Parvati Devi who is respondent No. 2 made an application to the President of the Committee complaining about some encroachment made in the public street in front of her house by one Telu Ram and also complaining about the illegal and unjustified act of the committee in dismantling a platform in front of her house. On receipt of this complaint a notice was issued to Telu Ram asking him to remove the encroachment. Telu Ram in his reply to the notice maintained that he had not erected any chabutra in front of his house, and that the terrace existing there was an old one. On the report of the Building Inspector dated 8th February, 1960, the case was referred to the Building Sub-Committee by resolution dated 10th February, 1960 the Building Sub-Committee entrusted the case to the Chairman for report. The resolution of Building Sub-Committee was confirmed by the general house on 20th March, 1960. The petitioner made a report dated 20th April, 1960 (copy Annexure 'D') which was as follows :- "I had been to the spot. This terrace is very old. It appears to have been repaired. Parvati Devi had made the application on account of her personal enmity. This file may be consigned to the record room". By means of a resolution dated 17th May, 1960, the Building Sub-Committee accepted the report of the petitioner and that resolution was confirmed by the General House on 26th May, 1960. In the petition a number of allegations are made to show that it was under political pressure that the Punjab Government issued a notice on 8th August, 1962 to the petitioner under the proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership of the Committee. In this notice (copy Annexure 'F') the following allegation was made. "It has been brought to the notice of Government that vide its Resolution No. 42 dated the 20th March, 1962 you were directed by the Municipal Committee, Hissar to make a report about the encroachment alleged to have been made by Shri Telu Ram by way of erecting a chabutra in front of his house near Vishnu Devi Zanana Hospital without the prior sanction of the Committee. You visited the spot, non-associating any Municipal employee and ignoring the reports of Overseer, Building Inspector and Secretary of the Committee, made a wrong report that the said chabutra is an old one with temporary repairs and recommended to the Committee for closing the case, though the position was contrary one. Thus by suppressing the real facts you flagrantly abused your position as a member of the Committee, within the meaning of Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 ". After the petitioner had submitted his explanation, the impugned notification was made removing him from membership and disqualifying him for a period of two years on the ground that he had flagrantly abused his position as member of the aforesaid Committee". The action of the Government has been challenged on the ground of mala fides, the suggestion being that the intention was to strengthen the faction of Shri Dalbir Singh in the Municipal Committee and weakened the group of the petitioner and his friends who are opposed to Shri Dalbir Singh. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a report had been made as long ago as 1960 by the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of the Building Sub-Committee and that report had been adopted by the Building Sub-Committee and also confirmed by the General House and that it could not possibly be said that he had in any manner abused his position flagrantly as a member of the Municipal Committee because whatever he did was done bona fide and according to what the petitioner's own conclusion was with regard to the matter. It is pointed out that in the notice the allegation is that the petitioner had visited the spot without associating with himself any Municipal employee and ignoring the reports of the Overseer, the Building Inspector and Secretary of the Committee and had made wrong report that the Chabutra was an old one although the true position was different. He had thus suppressed the real facts.
(3.) The allegations in respect of mala fides have been emphatically denied in the written statement and it has been categorically stated that the real reason for taking action under Section 16(1)(e) was that the petitioner had abused his position in a flagrant manner as a member of the Committee. The law on the point has been discussed by me in Civil Writ No. 22 of 1963 and Civil Writ No. 539 of 1963, decided today and it is unnecessary to discuss the authorities again. In the other writ petitions it was found by me that the reasons which were given in the show cause notice as also in the written statement for removal and disqualification of the members concerned were neither germane nor relevant to the provisions contained in Section 16(1)(e). But that is not the case here. It cannot be said that the charge which was made in the show cause notice was extraneous to the aforesaid provision or was not germane or relevant to it . It may be that the action taken was somewhat belated inasmuch as the petitioner made the report in question on 20th April, 1960 and the show cause notice was not issued to him before 8th August, 1962 but that by itself is not sufficient to establish mala fides or to show that the action by the Government was outside the purview of Section 16(1)(e).;