IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
Smt. Sindhu Singh, wife of Chandra Shekhar Singh –Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20463 of 2021
Decided on : 08-02-2022
Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Section 25(5) – Removal from post of Chief Councillor, Nagar Parishad – There is no specific denial of petitioner's allegation that enquiry report, which was basis for passing impugned order was not supplied to petitioner – Only finding recorded in impugned order in respect petitioner's explanation to show cause notice is that same is not acceptable – There is absolutely no discussion as to what explanation was given by petitioner in her reply to show cause notice and how same was not acceptable – An elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following procedure prescribed by law, in violation of provisions of Article 14 of Constitution, by State by adopting a casual approach – Though, right to hold such post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to provisions provided by Legislature for his removal – Apart from statutory disqualification, order passed in exercise of powers under section 25(5) also leaves a social stigma, marring future electoral prospects, and is required to be passed strictly in accordance with statute, observing principles of natural justice – Besides, intervenor-petitioner cannot be treated to be a necessary party in present proceedings wherein an order passed under Section 25(5) of Act is under challenge – State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution is under obligation to act fairly without ill-will or malice in fact or in law – Impugned order set aside with liberty to respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (Paras 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 34, 38 and 41)
Doctrine – 'Malice in law' means something done without lawful excuse – It is a deliberate act in disregard to rights of others – It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object – It is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause and not necessarily an act done with ill-feeling and spite. (Para 34)
(2012) 4 SCC 407; (2001) 3 SCC 565; (2001)6 SCC 260;(1999)6 SCC 172 – Relied.
(1994) 2 SCC 481 – Distinguished.
2000(1) PLJR 632 – Referred.
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. The democratic set up of the country has been recognized as basic feature of the Constitution, like other features, namely, supremacy of Constitution, rule of law, principle of separation of powers, power of judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ‘Basic’ means the basis of a thing on which it stands, on the failure of which it falls. The enunciation of law to this effect in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 is being referred at the outset in the present judgment for two basic reasons. Firstly, we are utterly dismayed over the manner in which the Principal Secretary of Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar (Department in short), in exercise of power under Section 25(5) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 ( for short ‘the Act’) has passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of Chief Councillor, Siwan Nagar Parishad. Secondly, the order which has the effect of removal of a person, democratically elected to an office of a local body having constitutional status, is patently perverse, disclosing complete non-application of mind.
2. In the present writ application, the petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 29.11.2021, issued by the Department under the signature of its Under Secretary. We consider it apt to reproduce the impugned order verbatim:-
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra [(1970) 2 SCC 484 : AIR 1971 SC 385]
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 578]
Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC 33]
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. [(2008) 10 SCC 766]
Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155 : AIR 1976 SC 2602]
Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr., Bihar
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector
State of Maharashtra and others vs. Prabhu reported in (1994) 2 SCC 481
State of Bihar vs. Akhil Bhartiya Jan Kalyan Sangh and others reported in 2000(1) PLJR 632
State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh reported in (2001) 3 SCC 565
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh
Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2001)6 SCC 260
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conducting a full-fledged inquiry into the charges against an elected representative of the people and the emphasis on the princ....
The judgment established the importance of recording reasons, adherence to statutory timelines, and the need for application of mind in quasi-judicial decisions, emphasizing procedural fairness and n....
Removal of elected officials under quasi-judicial provisions necessitates adherence to principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and inquiry.
The grounds for removal of an elected official must be justified under the relevant legal provisions, and removal should only be resorted to under grave and exceptional circumstances.
Removal of an elected representative requires proof of willful misconduct and adherence to principles of natural justice, not just allegations of negligence.
The removal of an elected official requires strict adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, ensuring due process in disqualification cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.