Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2). This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2000 filed by respondent Bhanwar Lal to quash the order dated 12.12.2000 by which the respondent had been replaced by another nominated member in Municipal Board, Mt. Abu.

(3). We have perused the pleadings and judgment under appeal. The facts and circumstances leading to this case are that the first respondent was nominated by the State Government in exercise of powers u/Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short, referred to hereinafter as `the Act) as a member of the Municipal Board, ML. Abu by order dated 16.11.2000 alongwith one Shri Parmanand which order was published in the Official Gazetee on 25.11.2000. However, vide order dated 12.12.2000 Yusuf Khan (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) was nominated in place of the first respondent Bhanwar Lal and that Government order stood notified in the Official Gazette on 13.12.2000 (Annex. - R/1 to the writ petition). Hence the writ petition by Bhanwar Lal.

(4). Before the learned Single Judge it was contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent (herein) that as the Act provides for a particular procedure for removal of the Boards Members by holding enquiry for misconduct, the State could not have removed the first respondent so unceremoniously and that the removal had been made in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, nor any charges have been framed under Sec. 63 of the Act.

(5). The respondent State had taken the plea that respondent No. 4 Yusuf Khan had initially been nominated and by inadvertence Bhanwar Lals name had been published in the order, therefore, it required only to issue a corrigendum and not removal of the first respondent (herein) and nomination of respondent No.4.

(6). Yusuf Khan submitted his separate reply that the first respondent Bhanwar Lal had not taken the oath and, therefore, the cannot be deemed to be a Member of the Board and his nomination is inconsequential. It was contended that the first respondent (herein) was removed rightly as he held the office at the pleasure of the Government.

(7). Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. considered the rival submissions made by the parties and the legal provisions and, in particular, the amended provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act which authorises the State Government to nominate three members of 10 per cent of the elected members of the municipality, whichever is less, having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. The second provision thereto reads that the State Government shall have power to withdraw a member nominated under sub-clause (2) at any time. Learned counsel for the first-respondent (herein) contended that the procedure prescribed u/Sec. 63 of the Act has to be followed and removal without following the due procedure is impermissible under the law. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on Kanta Devi & Another vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (1). It was also contended that the Government is permitted to correct a bona fide mistake occurred inadvertently but, in the instant case, it is a case of replacement by respondent No. 4 which is not permissible. The counsel for the State had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Narain Aggarwal & Others vs. Nagar Palika, Shahajahanpur & Ors. (2), wherein the Supreme Court, in a similar situation, interpreted the analogous provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act.

(8). We have perused the pleadings and also considered the arguments put forth by Shri Kailash Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In the instant case, the Government had not issued any notification for removal of the first- respondent (herein) nominating respondent No. 4. The order dated 12.12.2000 (Annex.-3) and notification dated 13.12.2000 provide for a corrigendum to the effect that in place of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document