IMPORTANT POINTS
Misconduct; malice in law; administrative action.
A complainant cannot claim status of a litigant.

Headnote:(a) Words and Phrases – Misconduct and disgraceful conduct – What constitutes misconduct – How to determine – Distinction between misconduct and disgraceful conduct – Discussed. (Paras 8 to 15)
        AIR 1992 SC 2188; (1996) 9 SCC 69; AIR 1997 SC 3571; (2007) 4 SCC 566; AIR 2008 SC 2594; (2000) 2 SCC 220; AIR 2006 SC 80; AIR 2002 SC 1124; AIR 1979 SC 1022; AIR 2006 SC 3290 – Relied upon
        (b) Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 – Section 55B – An elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed by law – It will be violative of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution – Further, removal of a duly elected Member on the basis of proved misconduct being quasi-judicial proceeding in nature; principles of natural justice have to be strictly complied with – For the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required. (Paras 17, 23, 24 and 28)
        AIR 1973 SC 1461; AIR 1980 SC 1789; AIR 2002 SC 2112; AIR 2003 SC 87; AIR 2006 SC 3127; AIR 1997 SC 1451; AIR 1997 SC 2324; AIR 1993 SC 1804; AIR 2003 SC 2363; AIR 1999 SC 2378; (1998) 8 SCC 655; AIR 1995 SC 244; AIR 1966 SC 1925; AIR 2002 SC 2158; AIR 1963 SC 395; AIR 1964 SC 364; AIR 2001 SC 2524; AIR 1982 SC 983; AIR 1993 SC 2042; AIR 1998 SC 1222 – Relied upon
        (c) Administration of Justice – Speaking order – Giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice – It ensures fairness, transparency and application of mind in quasi-judicial proceedings – The authority must record reasons. (Paras 33 to 35)
        AIR 1991 SC 537; AIR 1995 SC 1811; AIR 1974 SC 87; AIR 1993 SC 935; AIR 1990 SC 2205; AIR 1990 SC 1984; AIR 1993 SC 1407; (2010) 13 SCC 336; AIR 1987 SC 71 – Relied upon
        (d) Malice in law – What constitutes – It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause – It is not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. (Para 37)
        AIR 1976 SC 1207; (2005) 8 SCC 394; AIR 2010 SC 3745 – Relied upon
        (e) Administration of Justice – Complaint – A complainant, at the most, could lead the evidence as a witness – He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant – The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. (Para 44)
        AIR 1971 SC 385; AIR 1976 SC 578; AIR 1976 SC 2602; (2002) 1 SCC 33; (2008) 10 SCC 766 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        The scope and ambit of Section 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 concerning removal of an elected member is under consideration in this appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
        Instant case has been a crystal clear cut case of legal malice.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2009 by which the High Court has affirmed and upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra declaring that the conduct of the appellant was unbecoming of the President of Uran Municipal Council and declared him to be disqualified for remaining tenure of municipal councilorship under Section 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act 1965) and further declared him disqualified for a period of six years from the date of the order i.e. 21.3.2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. That the appellant was elected as member of Uran Municipal Council and, subsequently, elected as a President of the Municipal Council. The appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 3.12.2008 by the State of Maharashtra calling upon him to explain why action under Section 55B of the Act 1965 be not taken against him. The chargesheet contained the following six charges:

Charge No.1

Uran Charitable Medical Trust has built up unauthorized construction on Survey Nos. 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 situated at Mouje Mhatawali to the extent of 1140 square meters for their hospital and you are the Trustee of the said Trust. Municipal Council had issued notice dated 17.10.2006 for demolishing the said unauthorized construction on its own. Shri Dosu Ardesar Bhiwandiwala had filed Regular Civil Suit No.95/07 against the said notice in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran and the same was decided on 19.12.2007 in which plaintiff’s application was rejected.

Junior Engineer of Uran Municipal Council lodged a complaint with Uran police Station under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 against the said unauthorized construction on 24.7.2007. Shri Jayant Gosal and three others filed Public Interest Litigation No. 57 of 2008 concerning the said unauthorized construction of the said Trust in the Bombay High Court and the same is presently subjudice. You are the Trustee of the said Trust and as President of the Municipal Council, you are duty bound to oppose the unauthorized construction. However, you did not take any action to oppose the same and it appears that you have supported the unauthorized construction. You have, therefore, violated Sections 44, 45, 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Charge No.2

The Municipal Council had called the General Body Meeting on 22.3.2007 by way of Resolution No. 2 Survey Nos. 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 at Mouje Mhatawali area admeasuring about 4000 square meters was proposed for reservation of garden. However, instead of that, the resolution was passed for reserving the same for hospital, nursing home and medical college. At that time, you were presiding over the meeting. By this illegal Act, you have violated Sections 44( 1 )(e) and 42(1), (2) and (3) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965.

Charge No.3

After you were elected as the President on 20.12.2006, a General Body Meeting was held on 9.1.2007. Although it is required under Section 80(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965 to hold the General Body Meeting once in two months, no such meeting was held for a period of three months between 28.2.2007 and 28.5.2007. By the said act, you have violated Section 81 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965.

Charge No.4

In the meeting held on 9.1.2007, the suggestion to the Agenda No.4 made by Members Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatre that a rented car be provided for the use of the President was rejected by you. Similarly, the Members Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatrehad made suggestion to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 211

2012 (2) Supreme 506SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar, JJ. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir — Appellant versusDistrict Collector, Raigad & Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 2085 of 2012Decided on : 2-3-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS Misconduct; malice in law; administrative action. A complainant cannot claim status of a litigant.

Cases Referred (46)

2012 (2) Supreme 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar, JJ.
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir — Appellant
versus
District Collector, Raigad & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2012
Decided on : 2-3-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
Misconduct; malice in law; administrative action.
A complainant cannot claim status of a litigant.