H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the State Government removing the Petitioner from his membership of the Municipal Committee, Uklana Mandi, District Hissar, (herinafter called the Committee) and further disqualifying him for a period of five years under Section 16(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act) A copy of the impugned order has been filed as Annexure 'F' with the writ petition. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated hereunder.
(2.) GENERAL Elections to the Committee were held sometime in May, 1964, and nine persons, including the Petitioner, were elected as its members. There was one Ganga Jal also elected as a member and he is a Petitioner challenging a similar order in Civil Writ 321 of 1969. The Petitioner was elected Vice -President, and Ganga Jal was elected President The President was elected for a period of three years whereas the term of the Petitioner was one year only. He was again elected Vice -President in 1965 and also in 1966 -For the year 1967, the Petitioner was again elected Vice -President by toss since the two rival groups in the Committee were equally balanced. Ganga Jal, however, lost the toss and Shri Gauri Shanker Respondent was elected though, of course, by a toss. The term of office of the Petitioner as Vice -President was to expire in June, 1968, but no election to that office was hold till 19th January, 1960. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the election was postponed deliberately by Shri Guari Shan -ker Respondent belonging to the opposite group who would not under one excuse or another convene a meeting of the committee for holding: fresh election since he was anticipating the removal of the Petitioner and Ganga Jal from the membership of the Committee by the Minister for Local Government, Respondent No. 2. The averment of the Petitioner further is that, at one time, he, Ganga Jal and four others, formed a dominant group in the Committee and the opposition group belonging to the Congress party consisted of three members only. Gauri Shanker, Respondent No. 3, is said to belong to the Congress party. Banarsi Dass one of the elected members had died, thus reducing the strength of the membership of the Committee to eight. The Petitioner was served with a show -cause notice dated 3rd September 1968 under Section 16(1) of the Act calling upon him to explain within twenty one days from the despatch of the notices to why he should not be removed from the membership of the Committee on the ground that he had managed to get a pacca Chabutra constructed in front of his house out of the municipal funds. This, in terms of the notice, constituted a flagrant abuse of position by the Petitioner as Vice -President/Member of the Committee within the meaning of Section 16(1)(e). A statement of allegations bearing the same date was also served on the Petitioner. The allegations are in the following terms: Shri Madan Lal, while working as the Vice -President of the Municipal Committee, Uklana, got a pacca Chabutra built in front of his house out of municipal funds. Though the Chabutra does not fall within the boundary wall of the house but the house has an opening towards this side. This Chabutra has been provided to give a better look to the house and facilitate the entrance. It does not serve any public purpose at all since the lane is blind alley and cannot be used as a thorough fare.
(3.) AN explanation was furnished by the Petitioner to the State Government on 18th September, 1968, and a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 'D' with the writ petition. The Petitioner denied that any Chabutra in fact had been constructed as such. It was urged by him that only a drain between the back side of the walls of the houses of Amarti Devi ard Hukam Chand on the one side and the house of Ram Sarup on the other, had been covered, in pursuance of a unanimous resolution of the Committee passed on 8th January, 1967. A copy of this resolution is Annexure 'B' with the writ petition. The Petitioner in his explanation described the charge as baseless, levelled on account of party faction and submitted that Respondent No. 3, who is now the President of the Committee, was himself a party to the resolution. It was stated by him that what is said to be a Chabutra was only a covering over the drain constructed at a cost of not more than Rs 20/ - at the most, to avoid bad smell emitted on account of stagnation of water in the drain which adjoins the kitchen of Ram Sarup's house and also caused public nuisance to all passers -by through the maingate of Gol Mandi which gate was close to the drain. The Petitioner also stated in his explanation that if the expenditure were irregular there would have been an audit objection and that he could not sloop so low as to have Rs 20/ - - of the Committee spent for the benefit of his wife Amarti Devi though admittedly her house abuts on that drain. A plan giving location of the Mandi gate and other houses including that of Amarti Devi and also showing drain on which Chabutra is said to have been constructed has been filed as Annexure 'C' with the writ petition. The correctness of the plan has not been disputed in any of the returns. The Petitioner in his explanation to the State Government attributed personal apimosity to Respondent No. 3, who, according to the Petitioner, was out to malign the latter and Ganga Jal, the ex -President because of groupism in the Committee and Ganga Jal having given up his long associations with the Congress party. It was stated by the Petitioner that the charge levelled against him was totally false and mala fide and that he as Vice -President or as member of the Committee had nothing personally to do with the resolution which was passed unanimously by all the six persons present in that meeting. This resolution was again confirmed by the Committee at its next meeting. The Petitioner has also filed with the writ petition a copy of the letter dated 16th, April, 1968, written by him and Ganga Jal in which certain allegations were made against Respondent No. 3. At this stage, it may be relevant to reproduce the resolution of the Committee passed on 8th January, 1967, in obedience to which the drain is said to have been covered.;