SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Chh) 149

2004 (2) C.G.L.J. 411
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
L.C. Bhadoo, J.

Wilson D'Souza
vs
State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2004
Decided On : 6/8/2004

Writ petition against show-cause notice lies only when the authority has no jurisdiction to issue such notice or when the notice does not meet the requirements of the relevant section.

Headnote:

show-cause notices - Legality of show-cause notices under Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Section 19

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an elected Councillor, challenged the legality of show-cause notices issued against him by the Mayor, alleging that they were arbitrary and against the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition against the show-cause notices was not maintainable and dismissed it at the admission stage.

Issues: Legality of show-cause notices, jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices, and compliance with Section 19 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ petition against show-cause notice lies only when the authority has no jurisdiction to issue such notice or when the notice does not meet the requirements of the relevant section. The recipient of the notice should respond to it and raise jurisdictional issues before approaching the Court.

Final Decision: The writ petition against the show-cause notices was dismissed at the admission stage.

ORDER

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an elected Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Durg, has questioned the legality and propriety of show-cause notices, dated 8-7-2004 and 16-7-2004 (Annexures P-l & P-2) respectively.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is an elected Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Durg. His case is that he is known for his devotion and sincerity towards the general public. Twice he was elected as Councillor being an independent candidate from the area where only 8 Christian voters are there. The petitioner was requested by the ruling congress party to support the congress and ultimately in the larger interest of public, he took a decision to join congress party. Looking to the performance of the petitioner and his activities soon he came in close contact with the then Chief Minister which unfortunately has not been liked by Mayor Kum. Saroj Pandey who is a BJP candidate. The petitioner has attended almost every meeting of the Council and in last ten years, it can be said that his attendance in the meeting was best amongst all the Councillors. He has supported the great cause and work of the Corporation but has equally opposed by the Corporation and inactiveness of the Corporation as per the requirement. On account of this activeness of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 Kum. Saroj Pandey does not like the petitioner and on many occasions she was threatening him to teach a lesson. It is being said openly by the Mayor that the petitioner would be subjected to some action by the department to ensure his removal and non-election in future. The petitioner was flabbergasted to receive a notice/order dated 16-7-2004 alongwith another notice dated 8-7-2004 asking him to submit his claim before the Director on 21-7-2004 as to why he can not be removed from the post of Councillor under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the show-cause notice dated 8-7-2004, it has been mentioned that in the meeting dated 30th October, 2002, the conduct of the petitioner was not good and was against the Constitution as he put a gunny bag containing filth on the table of the Mayor and further that in the general meeting dated 18-5-2004 when the Mayor was reading the budget, the petitioner had threw certain papers and magazines. The conduct of the petitioner was against the decorum of the House and created obstruction in the meeting. The said notice is illegal, arbitrary and against law. For such act, till today, none of the Councillors of any Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Nagar Panchayat has been issued such a notice as has been done in the present case. The said notice has been issued at the behest of Mayor Kum. Saroj Pandey. The first allegation in the show-cause notice has been levelled after two years of the incident and the said show-cause notice does not meet the requirement of Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the said show cause notices (Annexures P-1 and P-2) be quashed.

3. I have heard Mr. Pritinker Diwaker, Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No. 3.

4. Mr. P. Diwaker, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as respondent No. 4 is presently against the petitioner and she wants to remove the petitioner, therefore, the said notices are issued on her behest without valid reasons and the same does not meet the requirement of Section 19 of the Act. He further argued that the petitioner is an elected representative and in the Corporation meeting it is the general practice that the elected members always put forth their grievances and sometimes even high pitch of voice is also used and even during the course of discussions in order to attract the attention of the Chair some hot words are also exchanged being a public







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top