R.S.Narula, J. - (1.) SATYA Pal Mahajan petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee of Dinanagar, district Gurdaspur, in 1964. In the election to the office of the President of the said municipality held in July 1964, the petitioner was elected as such. Notification under section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Act 3 of 1911), hereinafter called the Act declaring the petitioner having been elected as President of the municipality was issued by the State Government on September 4, 1964. On September 30, 1964; one Sain Dass applied for a proposed construction plan being sanctioned by the municipality. The application was received in the municipal office on October 1, 1964, and was referred to the member of the ward for report. His report was received on November 14. 1964, to the effect that Sain Dass had already started the construction of the house in anticipation of the committee's sanction. The ward member of the municipality, therefore, recommended the demolition of the building which had been constructed without sanction. The Secretary of the municipality accordingly served a notice on Sain Dass on November 16, 1964 Sain Dass did not heed to the notice and continued the construction. The matter was considered in the meeting of the Municipal committee held on November 25, 1964. By resolution No. 410 of that date, the committee directed the issue of a regular notice under section 195 of the Act for demolition of the building to Sain Dass. Such a notice was issued in pursuance of the above -said municipal resolution on December 1, 1964. The notice was not complied with. The matter came up again before the municipality in its meeting held on December 30, 1964. By resolution No. 462 of that date, the municipality directed its President, the writ petitioner, to take action against Sain Dass in pursuance of powers which had been delegated to the petitioner under section 195 -A of the Act. Sain Dass then filed an application before the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurdaspur, for annulling the municipal resolution No. 462, dated December 30, 1964. The application of Sain Dass was allowed by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, dated April 9, 1965 (annexure 'E'). Shri V.V. Kohli, Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), in exercise of his powers of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, allowed the appeal of Sain Dass. He took notice of the plea of Sain Dass to the effect that he had constructed the wall on the assumption that the plans submitted by him had already been approved by the committee and that Sain Dass was prepared to compound the matter. He then observed that no clear reply having been given by the municipal committee to Sain Dass within six weeks' from the date of the receipt of his application, it amounted to an automatic sanction of the proposed plans by the municipality. The learned Sub -Divisional Officer appears to have lost sight of the fact that the relevant period mentioned in section 193 (1 -a) of the Act is sixty days and not six weeks, as was the case in section 92 of the Punjab Municipal Act (20 of 1891). The appellate authority seems to have fallen into this apparent error of law by referring to a decision under the 1891 Act without seeing the relevant provision of law contained in the 1911 Act. He then observed that his attention had been drawn to section 33 of the Act, according to which a municipal committee cannot delegate its powers under section 195 to the President of the Committee. Even in this respect the Sub -Divisional Officer committed a glaring error. The penalty had been imposed by the petitioner under section 195 -A and not under section 195. The power of a municipality under section 195 -A is in the list of the functions which can be delegated under section 33(l) of the Act. In view of both the erroneous considerations, he held that 'the resolution passed by the committee is against law' and proceeded to set aside the same. To the above said order, he added the following rider - In view of the fact that the committee had not given any reply to the application put in by the appellant on 1st October, 1964, I feel it desirable that the committee as a whole should compound the matter with the appellant and decide the matter. Thereafter, Sain Dass started making fresh constructions without approaching the municipal committee for composition. In pursuance of the municipal resolution, the petitioner imposed a fine of Rs. 1.000/ - on Sain Dass after Sain Dass had refused to accept service of a fresh notice of April 18 1965, under section 195 -A. Sain Dass appears to have taken exception to the imposition of the said fine. He served upon the municipal committee a notice brought his advocate. Shri Baldev Singh Bhandari. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded a copy of the notice received by him from the counsel for Sain Dass to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Gurdaspur, with his letter dated May 15, 1965 (annexure 'B'), the relevant part of which was in the following terms: "It is observed that the orders passed by you in the appeal were essentially to be complied with by the committee, without any departure. It is, further, observed that the action of the President in imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in an arbitrary manner is illegal and against the provisions of section 228 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. You are requested to please ensure that the committee or the President is not allowed to do anything illegal in the case." The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, dated May 21, 1965 (copy annexure 'C') to the above -said communication, of which a copy had been endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner "to abide by the rules strictly and abstain from assuming the role of a Court of law. After giving a detailed resume of the relevant facts leading to the receipt of a copy of the Deputy Commissioner's letter, the petitioner pointed out to the Sub -Divisional Officer that Sain Dass had not complied with the orders of the Sub -Divisional Officer to compound the proceedings and that the Sub -Divisional Officer had erroneously mentioned six weeks instead of sixty days as the period fixed by sub -section (4) of section 193 of the Act on the expiry of which a proposed construction plan is assumed to have been sanctioned. The petitioner further complained that Sain Dass was still continuing construction instead of sending any reply to the notices served on him. The petitioner claimed that in those circumstances he was left with no choice but to impose a penalty for disobedience of the orders of the municipal committee as provided under sub -section (2) of section 195 -A. He then stated that Sain Dass had not paid the fine imposed upon him and in view of the legal question raised in those proceedings, the petitioner had stayed recovery of the fine in question and the petitioner requested the Sub -Divisional Officer to have the matter examined by the Government Pleader as to whether a President of the municipality could impose a fine as provided in section 195 -A (2) of the Act or not. The petitioner made it clear that he would be prepared to take action according to the legal advice obtained by the Government. It was then pointed out in the end that the action of Sain Dass had greatly damaged the authority (prestige) of the committee and it would, therefore be in the fitness of things that the attitude of Sain Dass towards the municipal laws and his non -compliance with the orders of the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurdaspur, be kept in mind while advising the municipal committee for taking such further action in the matter, as the Sub -Divisional Officer may direct Instead of obtaining any legal advice on the pure question of law that had been raised in this controversy the Punjab Government served on the petitioner a show -cause notice, dated June 19, 1967 (annexure 'A'), wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had without having regard to the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, instituted fresh proceedings under section 195 -A of the Act and had imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - upon Sain Dass. The other allegations mentioned in the letter as well as in the statement of allegations accompanying the same was that the petitioner had not discharged his responsibility under the Business Bye -laws of the committee to have the proceedings recorded correctly inasmuch as the dissent and walk out by some members in two committee meetings had not been incorporated in the proceedings. In the statement of allegations, the petitioner was alleged to have "flagrantly abused his position/powers as a President by assuming the powers vested in a Court of Law" by imposing the fine in an arbitrarily manner beyond the jurisdiction of the President. In connection with another allegation relating to the proceedings not having been recorded in full, all that was stated was that it was the responsibility of the petitioner under the Business Bye -laws to have the proceedings recorded correctly and it was not stated that anything done or omitted to be done by the petitioner in that behalf amounted to abuse of his powers as President of the committee. The petitioner submitted an interim reply (annexure 'F'), dated July 6, 1967. Since the term of his office as President of the Municipal Committee for the maximum period of three years had since come to an end, the petitioner had no excess to the municipal records and, therefore, requested in his interim reply to be allowed to peruse the relevant files. The petitioner was informed by the Deputy Commissioner's memorandum, dated September 8, 1967 (Annexure 'G') that the record was laying with the Government and the petitioner might, therefore, approach the authorities concerned at Chandigarh in that respect. A copy of the memorandum was endorsed by the petitioner to the Deputy Director, Local Government, Jullundur Division, with the request that the proceedings might be obtained and sent so that proper reply be sent.
(2.) IN August 1967 fresh election of the President of the municipal committee in question was held. The petitioner was re -elected. Notification under section 24 of the Act in respect of the fresh election of the petitioner as President of the Dinanagar Municipality was issued on November 10, 1957. Without going any further into the matter and without even noticing that the term of office of the petitioner daring which the allegad acts or defaults were said to have been Committed by the petitioner, had already expired, the State Government issued the impugned notification, dated April 24, 1969 (annexure 'H'), wherein it was stated that the Governor of Punjab was satisfied that the petitioner had abused his power as President of the Municipal Committee Dinanagar. In exercise of the powers vested in the Governor of Punjab under section 22 of the Act he wis pleased to remove the petitioner from the office of the President of the said municipal committee from the date of the publication of the notification (annexure 'H') in the official gazette. It is this order of the petitioner's removal from the office of the President of the Municipal Committee that has been challenged in the present writ petition. In the written statement, dated May 13, 1969, filed by Shri Asa Singh, Assistant Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government Department, it has been stated that the petitioner never approached the Punjab Government for any record except for the municipal file to enable him to reply to the show -cause notice and that the said record was made available to the petitioner as asked for by him.
(3.) TO the main allegation contained in paragraph 11(vii) regarding the effect of the expiry of the term of the office, to which the allegation against the petitioner related, all that has been slated on behalf of the respondents is that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v Bakhtawar Singh L.P.A. 23 of 1959 decided on August 29, 1960, has no application to the instant case, as the above cited case pertained to the removal of a men her of a municipal committee from his office under section 16 of the Act, whereas the present case pertains to the removal of the President under section 22 of the Act. It is then stated that the previous writ petition was allowed on the ground that the misconduct of the member, if any, had been condoned by the electorate.;