1. The petitioner herein was elected as Councillor from Ward No.19 in Kawardha Municipal Council on 4-1-2015. In an auction proceeding held for sale of cow & calf by the Municipal Council, it was alleged that the petitioner participated and purchased one cow & one calf leading to filing of complaint by respondent No.3 to the Collector under Section 36 read with Section 41 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') for removing the petitioner from the post of Councillor. The said complaint was taken cognizance of by the Collector, Kabirdham and by order dated 7-2-2017, the petitioner was removed from the post of Councillor under Section 35 read with Section 38 (2) of the Act of 1961. Feeling aggrieved against that order, appeal was preferred under Section 41 (4) of the Act of 1961 and the appeal was dismissed by the State Government in first round which was set aside by this Court by order dated 2-5-2017 and the matter was remitted back for consideration afresh and now, after consideration, again the appeal has suffered the same fate leading to filing of this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the appellate authority upholding the order of the Collector removing the petitioner from the post of Councillor.

2. The writ petition is primarily rested on the ground that the petitioner has never participated in the auction proceeding and a different person participated in the auction which is evident from the auction proceeding and under a conspiracy, the petitioner is sought to be maligned only for political mileage and advantage and the allegation of alleged participation in auction purchase was, therefore, not a disqualification which warranted removal of an elected Councillor on the concocted trivial allegation of participation in auction purchase of a cow and a calf. Therefore, the order of the Collector removing the petitioner from the post of Councillor and further order of the State Government affirming the order of the Collector deserve to be quashed.

3. Return has been filed by the State/respondents No.1 and 2 opposing the writ petition and supporting the order passed by the Collector and the order of the State Government dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

4. Respondent No.3 / complainant has also filed return supporting the action taken by the Collector and the order of the State Government dismissing the appeal.

5. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has neither participated in the auction proceeding nor purchase cow & calf, his father's name is Khorbahra Namdeo, whereas the person who has participated in the auction proceeding is Santosh Namdeo, son of Shri Ramsharan. He would further submit that pre-condition for attracting Section 35 (i) read with Section 110 of the Act of 1961 is that there must be a contract with the Municipal Council and in absence of any such contract, Section 35 (i) is not at all attracted and, therefore, the question of any disqualification does not arise. He would also submit that the alleged participation in the auction proceeding would not become a ground for removing the elected Councillor under Section 41 of the Act of 1961 and placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 and Sharda Kailash Mittal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 319, and finally, he would submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground.

6. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned order passed by the Collector duly upheld by the State Government, would submit that Section 110 of the Act of 1961 is not attracted and it is no one else except the petitioner who has participated in the auction proceeding and, therefore, he suffered disqualification under Section 38 (1) (e) of the Act of 1961 which