High Court Of Calcutta
Monoranjan Mallick
SANKAR DAS PAUL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction . Of .
Decided On : 09/22/1989
The court held that the order of supersession of the Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality was invalid because the State Government failed to follow the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the order was arbitrary and without any valid reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality, challenged the order of supersession of the Municipality by the State Government. The Petitioners contended that the order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Commissioners, that the allegations in the order were vague and indefinite, and that the order was mala fide and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of supersession was invalid because the State Government failed to follow the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the order was arbitrary and without any valid reasons.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of supersession of the Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality was invalid because the State Government failed to follow the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the order was arbitrary and without any valid reasons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of supersession was invalid because the State Government failed to follow the principles of natural justice. The court relied on the following principles: (a) An order of supersession of a Municipality has serious civil consequences and, therefore, the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the Commissioners before passing such an order. (b) The allegations in the order of supersession were vague and indefinite and, therefore, the Commissioners were not able to effectively defend themselves against the allegations. (c) The State Government failed to provide any valid reasons for the order of supersession. 2. The court held that the order was arbitrary and without any valid reasons. The court relied on the following factors: (a) The order of supersession was passed without any prior notice to the Commissioners. (b) The allegations in the order of supersession were not supported by any evidence. (c) The State Government did not consider any alternative measures before passing the order of supersession.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Order No. 307/c-10/ir-30/87 dated 4th August 1989 and the consequential Order No. 308/c-10/ir-30/89 dated 4th August 1989 forthwith.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are the Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality in the district of Murshidabad and they are 19 in number belonging to Congress (I ). The total number of seats of Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality is 30 out of which the petitioners are holding 19 seats and the 11 seats belonged to Left Front. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman and the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice-Chairman of the office of Board of Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said Municipality ). In the Municipal election held in the year 1986, the petitioners along with the Respondent Nos. 9 to 19 who belonged to Left Front were elected as Commissioners of the said Municipality and they took over the charge of the said Municipality on 17th July 1986. Since then, the petitioners along with the Respondent Nos. 9 to 19 have been continuing as Commissioners of the said Municipality. After taking over the said Municipality the petitioners have undertake several developmental works as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the said writ petition. Apart from the aforesaid departmental works, the present Board of Commissioners of the said Municipality have been making payments of the salaries of the staff regularly on the first date of each succeeding month and there has been any single valid in making such payment, although bonus and retirement benefits are also being paid to the staff of the said Municipality regularly and in time.
( 2 ) ON 5th August 1989 the petitioners duly performed their duties as the Commissioners of the said Municipality. In the evening of 5th August, 1989, after the office hours of the said Municipality, the petitioners learnt that the State Government had issued an order whereby the Commissioners of the said Municipality have been sought to be superseded.
( 3 ) FROM the orders being No. 307/c-10/ir-30/87 dated 4th August 1989, it appears that the Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality have been sought to be superseded for the period of one year from the date of taking over of the charge of the said Municipality under clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 554 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932. It also appeared from the order No. 308/c-10/ir-30/87 dated 4th August 1989, that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) Berhampore Municipality has been requested to take over of the charge of the said Municipality in addition to his own duties on and with effect from the date of taking over charge of the said Municipality until further orders. 3a. Xerox copies of the said orders are annexed as annexure 'a' to the writ petition collectively.
( 4 ) THE petitioners state that the aforesaid orders superseding the Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality are neither bona fide nor lawful, that the allegations contained in the said order dated 4th August 1989 are vague, indefinite and devoid of material particulars and as such the order is invalid and improper in the eye of law.
( 5 ) IT is further contended that if the allegations as contained in the aforesaid order related to the facts as the petitions take them to be, then they are factually incorrect which will be evident as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 11 of the writ petition. They therefore contend that the aforesaid orders superseding the Commissioners of the Berhampore Municipality are illegal, invalid and not sustainable in law, that the impugned orders seeking to supersede the Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality in the purported exercise of powers under section 553 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 without giving any opportunity to the Commissioners to show cause against the allegations levelled against them are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are void. The petitioners further state that the supersession of the Commissioners of Berhampore Municipality entails civil consequences of the most serious nature to the Municipality itself and at
Mulkapur Municipality v. State
State of Orissa v. Bina Pani Dei
Liberty Oil Mills and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Chintepalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co-op Society Ltd v Secy (Food and Agricultures) Govt of
Union of India v. Tulshiram Patel
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee
S.M.Nandi v. State of West Bengal
Jayanta Kumar Banerjee v. State
State of Maharashtra v. B.K.Takkamore
Vidarbha Nagar Palika v. State of Bombay
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.