KRISHNACHANDRA SHARMA, PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHURAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by one K.C. Sharma who was the President of the Municipal Committee, Khurai, till 25th October 1956 when the Committee was suspended and Shri M.A. Faruqui, Naib -Tahsildar was appointed as the Executive Officer to look after its business by a notification of the State Government under Section 53 -A of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this petition the Petitioner challenges the action of the State Government and characterises it as mala fide and proceeding on no ground. 1958 MPLJ 531 (F.B.).

(2.) THERE is, however, a vital difference between the two sections. Under Section 57, before action is taken to supersede a Municipal Committee, the State Government is required to call for an explanation of the Committee and to give it a reasonable opportunity to explain everything charged against it. Under Section 53 -A the action is to be of a temporary character and no explanation is required from the Municipal Committee. A Division Bench of this Court noticed this difference and observed that the omission in Section 53 -A appears to be deliberate: S.B. Parsodkar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara and Ors. ILR 1956 Nog. 222: AIR 1956 Nag. 56. We find nothing in the scheme of the Act or in the two sections to hold otherwise. It appears therefore that the State Government is authorised under Section 53 -A of the Act to act promptly when occasion demands it without waiting for an explanation from the Municipal Committee. No doubt, the reasons of the State Government have to be recorded in writing and notified, and to that extent we think it may be possible in a case of flagrant abuse of the power granted to the State Government by Section 53 -A to examine the reasons for what they are worth. We feel, however, that the law does not contemplate that the Court should sit down and obtain an explanation from the Government in the light of the allegations of the Municipal Committee and to try the matter as if it were an issue in a civil case. Prima facie the opinion of the State Government is entitled to great respect, unless the matter appears to become justiciable in the light of the provisions of the Act concerned. Under Section 57, the Full Bench held, the matter is generally justiciable, because an explanation of the Municipal Committee has to be called for and the State Government is required to give its reasons. Where there is an enquiry of this type it may be possible for this Court to find out in the light of the explanation whether the reasons given by the State Government lead to the inference that the necessary power was possessed by it. But, where, as here, action has not only to be prompt but without waiting for an explanation, it would be wrong ex post facto to open up the opinion of the State Government and to sit in judgment over it in the absence of a flagrant abuse of its powers by the State Government.

(3.) THE petition fails and is dismissed, but we make no order about costs. Petition dismissed.