D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 711 and 712 of 1963.
(2.) THE petitioners in both these petitions were the members of the Municipal Committee, Budhlada, district Bhatinda. They were removed by the State Government by two notifications issued in the exercise of its powers under section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act -hereinafter referred to as the Act. They have further been disqualified from contesting the municipal elections for a period of one year. The facts in both these petitions are identical, excepting that in the case of Naurata Ram the lessee of the municipal shop was his brother Madan Lal and in the case of Sugna Ram, he himself was the lessee of the shop. The petitioners were issued a show -cause notice each, the relevant part of which is as follows : It has been brought to the notice of the Government that Messrs. Madan Lal -Raj Kumar are running their business in a shop, which has been rented out by the Municipal Committee, Budhlada, to this firm. Your brother, Shri Madan Lal is one of the proprietors of the firm named above. In the meeting of the Committee, held on the 30th May, 1961, question of revision of the rent for the lease of the municipal properties came up for consideration. Therein the question of revision of the rent of this shop also came up for consideration and decisions were arrived at vide Resolution No. 7. You, being interested in the matter your brother being one of the proprietors of the firm, took part in the proceedings of the Committee held on the 30th May, 1961, referred to above, in contravention of Rule 3 -A of the General Rules framed under section 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. This act on your part shows that you flagrantly abused your position as a member of the Committee within the meanings of section 16(1)(e) ibid. The above notice is quoted from the petition of Naurata Ram and the notice of Sugna Ram is also in the same terms, excepting to the extent of the modification already indicated above. To these notices, the petitioners submitted their reply, which in Naurata Ram's case is in these terms : It is correct that the Municipal Committee, Budhlada had rented out a shop to my brother Shri Madan Lal in the year 1956 -57, when I was not a member of the said Committee and then the lease aforesaid in respect of the shop in question has been extended from time to time and is still subsisting and that my brother Madan Lal is in no better or worst position than the large number of other lessees of the Committee and has always been dealt with as one of them; strictly on an equal footing in all matters respecting the leases of Municipal properties, consistent with public interest. In the present case the facts of the matter are as follows : That the Municipal Committee Budhlada in its meeting held on 21st March 1961, vide resolution No. 409 (copy enclosed) decided to constitute a special sub -committee for making recommendations regarding the enhancement of the rates of rent of the municipal land sites and other properties for the next ensuing financial year. The composition of the sub -committee was as follows : 1. Shri Hit Abhilashi President M.C. 2. Shri Megh Raj Member M.C. Shri Chaman Lal Member M.C. and 2 representatives of the lease holders, they were : 1. Shri Arjan Singh. 2. Shri Brij Lal and this sub -committee held its meetings and give full consideration to the subject of formulating proposals for increasing the existing rates of rent, and submitted its report to the Committee. A copy of the report of the Sub -Committee is attached, it is self -explanatory, clear and full and throws light on the proceedings of the said sub -committee and provides the back -ground and basis for its suggesting an upward revision in the rental structure of the municipal properties. The report of the above said sub -committee, with which I was not associated in any way, was considered by the general body of the Committee in its meeting held on 30th May 1961 and recommendations of the sub -committee for an upward revision of the rent of practically all the lease holders was accepted in toto and adopted by the committee unanimously without any objection whatsoever from any quarter, vide resolution No. 7 (copy enclosed). Since the recommendations of the sub -committee were all comprehensive in its nature and affected all the lessees and were patently and positively in public interest in as much as these were for effecting an increase in rents and no decrease therein, the motion was carried without any dissent. It was a general question and was dealt by the committee in a general way and affected all the lessees of the committee and my brother Madan Lal's shop case was not given any particular consideration. Indeed it is incomprehensible as to how I being a party to a unanimous resolution of the nature abovesaid, whereby the committee stands to gain financially and the lease holders including my brother stand to pay higher rate of rents than the existing rent, in wide or wild sense of the term abused my position as a member of the committee and that too flagrantly. The said resolution No. 7 which is sought to be made a ground for taking action against me runs in the following words : Report of the sub -committee is accepted, increase in rent is sanctioned, action be taken accordingly. The position is quite clear and hardly needs extensive comments, for the resolution does not in the least show my interest in the matter. This reply is the same so far as the other petitioner is concerned. 3. After considering the replies, the impugned notifications removing the petitioners were issued. It is against these notifications that Civil Writs Nos. 711 and 712 of 1963 have been preferred in this Court.
(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no doubt rule 3 -A of the Rules framed under section 240 of the Municipal Act, which is in these terms : 3 -A. No member of a Committee shall be present at or vote or take any other part in any proceeding of a committee or sub -committee relating to a matter in which he or either of his parents or the husband or wife as may be of any such descendant has a direct or indirect interest, has been violated, yet the violation in the circumstances of these cases does not amount to flagrant abuse of powers as a Municipal Commissioner within the meaning of section 16(1)(e) of the Municipal Act. The facts that emerge from these petitions and which are not controverted are as follows : 1. That the contracts with the municipal committee were prior to the elections in which the petitioners took part and got elected; 2. that the question of raising the rents was submitted to a sub -committee to which neither of the petitioners was a party; 3. that the sub -committee examined the entire matter in a detailed manner in all its aspects. This is evident from annexure 'D' in C.W. No. 712 -1963; 4. that the sub -committee submitted a unanimous report to the municipal committee; and;