- (1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the suspension of Municipal Committee, Patiala without affording any opportunity to it to show cause as to why it be not suspended. Shortly stated, the facts are.- Elections to the Municipal Committee, Patiala were held in Sept. 1992. Petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Committee, Patiala on 9-10-1992 unanimously. Notification appointed the petitioner as President of the Municipal Committee, Patiala for a period of five years was issued on 20-10-1992. On 10-2-1994, notification, Annexure. P-1,. was issued placing the Municipal Committee, Patiala, under suspension, which has been, impugned in this writ petition.
(2.) The plea taken in the writ petition is that the impugned notification, Annexure P-1 has been issued without application of mind; that there are three situations under which action can be taken against the Municipal Committee under Section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); they are.- 1) not competent to perform its duties; 2) has persistently made default in the performance of duties imposed on it, and 3) has abused its powers; that all these three situations are different situations and reasons for these three situations would be altogether different and the authority issuing the notification has failed to record any specific reasons for suspending the Municipal Committee; and that whatever reasons have been recorded are not reasons in the eye of law. Another point raised is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Municipal committee, Patiala before passing the impugned order which is a serious violation of the principles of natural justice. Relevant provisions of Section 238 of the Act reads as under:- "238(1). If, in the opinion of the State Government a Committee is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law or exceeds or abuses its powers, the State Government may, by an order published, together with the statement of reasons thereof, in the Official Gazette, declare the Committee to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or absued its powers as the case may be, and suspend it for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the order. (Provided that the State Government may by notification for reasons to be specified therein, extend the aforesaid period of suspension, from time to time, for a period not exceeding one year in aggregate.) (3) Before making an order of suspension or supersession, opportunity shall be given to the Committee to show cause why such an order should not be made. (Provided that it shall not be necessary to give such opportunity where it is not reasonably practicable to do so. )"
(3.) We propose to dispose of this writ petition on the second point regarding violation of the principles of natural justice. Supreme Court of India in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, while dealing with the right to be heard in a similar situation under the Act, observed as under :- "A Committee as soon as it is constituted, at once, assumes a certain office and status, is endowed with certains and burdened with certain responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard, from the public. To be stripped of the office and status, to be deprived of the rights, to be removed from the responsibilities, in an unceremonious way as to suffer in public esteem, is certainly to visit, the Committee with civil consequences. In our opinion the status and office and the rights and responsibilities to which we have referred and the expectation of the Committee to serve its full term of office would certainly create sufficient interest in the Municipal Committee and their loss, if superseded, would entail civil consequences so as to justify an insistence upon the observance of the principles of natural justice before an order of supersession is passed. ";