- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen out of the following circumstances :- Jawala Parshad petitioner amongst nineteen others was also declared elected on 22nd January, 1961, as a member of the Municipal Committee, Panipat, District Karnal. The names of 18 members so elected were duly notified in the Punjab State Gazette on 17th February, 1961. This did not include the petitioner's name. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, in exercise of the powers vested in him under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with the previous sanction of the State Government refused to notify the election of the petitioner as member of the Municipal Committee, Panipat. The State of Punjab had previously served the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 10th March, 1961, proposing action under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act, on the ground, that he got himself marked present by the President Jagdish Mitter in the meeting of the Municipal Committee held on 13th July, 1960, wrongly stated as 20th July, 1960, when in fact he was not present and further that in getting himself marked present by proxy abused his position as member of Municipal Committee and was thus liable to be removed from the membership of the Committee under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioner in reply denied the above charge and added that the whole story had been fabricated at the instance of his adversary Madan Mohan Mahajan and thus the proceedings initiated against him were mala fide. In his view the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to notify his election to the Municipal Committee was illegal, without jurisdiction, unwarranted, mala fide and unjustified mainly for the reasons as given below :- (a) That Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act enjoins upon respondent No. 1, who is a public officer a statutory duty to notify the election of the petitioner to the Municipal Committee of Panipat. That it is the petitioner's specific and substantive legal right to have his election notified and that no specific legal remedy for enforcing this right has been provided under the Punjab Municipal Act or the rules framed thereunder. That respondent No. 1 has failed to perform his public duty enjoined upon him by law. (b) That respondent No. 1 has ignored the mandate of the legislature, in omitting to notify the election of the petitioner in the Punjab State Gazette along with the notification of the other 18 members on 2nd February, 1961, or subsequent thereto and thus the sovereign legislature has not been obeyed. (c) That justice was demanded by the petitioner from the respondent by requests and representations but the same has been refused by respondent No. 1 vide his Notification, annexure 'B' (e) That the failure of this statutory duty on the part of respondents is deliberate, wilful, intentional and mala fide and has been actuated by ulterior motives namely to reduce the strength of the political party of the petitioner in the Municipal Committee of Panipat and in deference to the wishes of Shri Madan Mohan Mahajan. The other reason for not notifying the election of the petitioner was to deprive him of his statutory right to contest the election of the President of the Panipat Municipality which took place in February, 1961. (f) That the respondent No. 1 has not observed the rules of natural justice and the remaining respondents have also failed to direct respondent No. 1 to perform his duty. (h) That the petitioner has been discriminated against in so far as the election of other 18 members who were elected along with the petitioner, has been notified by respondent No. 1. (j) That assuming without admitting the allegations of the notice, annexure'C', to be correct, they have absolutely no relevancy to the present term of membership of the petitioner. These facts related to the previous tenure of the petitioner and the notification of the subsequent election of the petitioner could not be withheld for having done something in his previous term of membership. The misconduct, if any, had been condoned by the electorate, because in spite of the alleged misconduct, the electorate had deemed it fit to elect him as a member for the year 1961-64 term. (k) That the service of notice, annexure 'C' is illegal, unauthorised, ineffective and without jurisdiction because a notice under Section 16 can be served only to remove a member for any misconduct committed by him during the term of that office. It has no reference to misconduct previous to the term of that office unless that misconduct is a statutory bar to his election to the Municipal Committee which would disqualify the member from contesting the election and would certainly be not a ground for his removal after he has been duly elected. (m) That the show cause notice issued under Section 16 of the Act to the petitioner has no relevancy with Section 24 of the Act where the Government may refuse to notify the election as member to any person who could be removed from office by the State Government under any of the provisions of Section 16. The bare reading of the section will show that only sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16(1) can be attracted in the case of a person who has not entered upon office as a Municipal Commissioner. Thus the service of such a notice before notifying his election is without jurisdiction and cannot form the basis for the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 24(1). He, therefore, prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent No. 1 directing him to notify his election to the Municipal Committee, Panipat, in the Punjab State Gazette. The respondents in their written statement also averred that it stood proved that the petitioner with the help of his colleague Jagdish Mitter in order to escape his removal from the membership of the municipal committee under Section 16(1)(e) of the act got himself marked present in the meeting held on the 13th July, 1960, although he was not present in the meeting. The statement also mentions the evidence on the basis of which the above is said to have been concluded. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was a member of the Municipal Committee Panipat during the term preceding the term for which his election the Deputy Commissioner Karnal, has refused. "Section 24 of the Act is as follows :- "24(1) Every election and appointment or a member or president of a committee shall be notified, in the case of a municipality of the first class, by the State Government, and in the case of a Municipality of the second or third class, by the Deputy Commissioner, and no member shall enter upon his duties until his election or appointment has been so notified and until, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, he has taken or made, at a meeting of the Committee, an oath or affirmation of his allegiance to India, in the following form namely :- " * * * * * * * * * * (2) * * * * * * * * Provided that the State Government, or in the case of any municipality of the second or third class the Deputy Commissioner with the previous sanction of the State Government may refuse to notify the election as member of any person who could be removed from office by the State Government under any of the provisions of Section 16 or of any person whom the State Government for any reason which it may deem to affect the public interest may consider to be unfitted to be a member of the committee, and, upon such refusal the election of such person shall be void". It is thus clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, with the previous sanction of the State Government was empowered to refuse to notify the election as member of any person who could be removed from office by the State Government under Section 16 of the Act. There can be no doubt upon such refusal the election of such a person is to be void. The State Government after giving due notice to the petitioner came to the conclusion that his conduct attracted the provisions of Section 16(1)(c). This decision was based on the evidence mentioned in paragraph 2(1) and 9(b) of the respondents' written statement. It cannot be said that the aforesaid evidence was altogether insufficient to support the action taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to notify the election of the petitioner as a member of the Municipal Committee, Panipat in the official Gazette cannot be assailed on any valid ground. He acted within the four corners of the statute providing constitution of committees (Chapter III of the Act). His impugned act was not illegal, without jurisdiction, unwarranted, mala fide and unjust as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.;