Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das
BIDHU BHUSAN BAGCHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. Cases 1692 Of 1951
Decided On : AUGUST 20, 1951
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT - Supersession of District Board - Order of supersession of District Board under Section 131, Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885 - Whether an administrative order - Whether open to interference by High Court under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India - Whether reasons given for supersession tenable - Whether order of supersession arbitrary or unreasonable.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an ex-member and second vice-Chairman of the District Board of Murshidabad, filed a petition challenging the order of supersession of the District Board passed by the State Government under Section 131 of the Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885. The petition alleged that the reasons given for the supersession were not tenable and that the Government exceeded its powers in making the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of supersession was an administrative act on the part of the State Government and that it was not open to interference by the High Court under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the reasons given for the supersession were tenable and that the order of supersession was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of supersession of the District Board was an administrative order or a judicial or quasi-judicial order? 2. Whether the order of supersession was open to interference by the High Court under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the reasons given for the supersession were tenable? 4. Whether the order of supersession was arbitrary or unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of supersession was an administrative act on the part of the State Government. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: - The order was made by the State Government, which is an executive body. - The order was not made in response to a lis between two parties. - The order did not require the application of a judicial process. 2. The Court held that the order of supersession was not open to interference by the High Court under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: - The order was an administrative act. - The order did not affect the rights of any subject. - The order was not made in excess of the authority conferred on the State Government. 3. The Court held that the reasons given for the supersession were tenable. The Court found that the District Board had been guilty of mismanagement and incompetence in the performance of its duties. The Court also found that the District Board had exceeded and abused its powers. 4. The Court held that the order of supersession was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court found that the State Government had acted on the basis of a proper enquiry and that the reasons given for the supersession were justified.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rules with costs, hearing-fee being assessed at five gold-mohurs in each case.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued by this Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order, dated 4-13. 1951, superseding the District Board of Murshida-bad, should not be set aside, or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India should not issue restraining the opposite parties from giving effect to the aforesaid order and the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Murshidabad delegating powers to the S. D. O. to administer the said District Board, or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
( 2 ) THE petition on which the Rule was issued purports to have been made by one Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi styling himself as ex-member and second vice-Chairman of the District Board on behalf of himself and other members of the Board. It does not appear, however, that the other members of the District Board joined the petitioner in moving the application. The petition was presented by a learned Advocate of this Court on the strength of a power conferred on the learned Advocate by the said Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi. The petition must, therefore, be regarded as a petition made on behalf of Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi himself. The opposite parties to this Rule are the State of West Bengal represented by (1) Janab A. Zaman, Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government Department; (2) the District Magistrate of Murshidabad, and (3) Sri S. P. Banerjee, Senior Deputy Collector of Murshidabad.
( 3 ) THE other Rule which was heard along with this Rule is numbered as 1692 of 195l. It purports to have been made by Surendra Narayan Sinha, who was described as an Ex-Chairman of the District Board of Murshidabad.
( 4 ) THE petition in the first Rule was sworn to by a person who states that he is acquainted with the facts of this case. The counter-affidavit in this Rule was sworn to Janab A. Zaman, Deputy Secretary to the Local Self-Government Department. The reply on behalf of the petitioner was sworn to by the petitioner himself and by one Ranendra Nath Pandey who is an ex-member of the District Board.
( 5 ) IN the connected Rule no. 1692 of 1951, the petitioner himself deposed in support of the petition. There are two affidavits on behalf of the opposite parties, one by Mr. J. C. Talukdar, District Magistrate of Murshidabad, and the order by Janab A. Zaman, Joint Secretary, Local Self-Government Department.
( 6 ) I am referring to these facts because assuming that it is competent for me to enquire into the facts which led the Government to pass the order of supersession, reference will have to be made to the affidavits presented on both sides.
( 7 ) IT will appear from the terms of the Rule which I have set out that the complaint made by the petitioner in these two Rules is directed against an order of supersession of the District Board of Murshidabad which was not notified on 13th April 1951, as also against the order delegating the power to administer the District Board to the S. D. O. of Murshidabad. The annexure appended to the petition is a copy of the resolution No. L. S. G. 3e-13/50 (1), dated 10th April 1951. The said resolution refers to the mismanagement by the District Board in regard to the Radharghat Ferry and the dismissal of the District Engineer, Murshidabad, which was reported by the Commissioner to the Provincial Government, suggesting supersession, or re-constitution of the District Board under Section 131, for incompetence and persistent default in the performance of the duties by the District Board. The resolution then goes on to state that on receipt of this report from the Commissioner, an enquiry was made by the District Magistrate. On receipt of the report made by the District Magistrate, the Government was satisfied that the District Board had not merely abused its powers but had shown incompetence to perform the duties imposed upon it by and under the law. The res
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
