Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 12.12.2000 by which the petitioner has been replaced by another nominated member in Municipal Board, Mt. Abu.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was nominated by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act) as a member of the Municipality Board, Mt. Abu vide order dated 16.11.2000 (Annex. 1) along with one Shri Parmanand. The said government order was published in the Official Gazette on 25.11.2000 (Annex.2). However, vide order dated 12.12.2000 (Annex. 3), Mohd. Yusuf Khan, respondent No.4 shown to have been nominated in place of the petitioner and that government order stood notified in the Official Gazette on 13.12.2000 (Annex. R/1). Hence, this petition.

(3). Shri S.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the Act provides for a particular procedure for removal of its member by holding an inquiry for mis-conduct, the respondent could not have removed the petitioner so unceremoniously. Petitioners removal has been made in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to him nor any charges have been framed as required under Section 63 of the Act.

(4). On the other hand, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken the plea that the respondent No.4 had initially been nominated and by inadvertence petitioners name has been published in the order. Therefore, it required only to issue on corrigendum and not of removal of the petitioner and nomination of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has submitted in his reply that petitioner had not taken oath till today, therefore, he cannot be deemed to be a member of the Board and his nomination or removal remains inconsequential. Moreso, the petitioner has been removed rightly as he would hold the office only at the pleasure of the Government.

(5). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The averments taken by the respondent No.4 that the petitioner has not taken oath till today, therefore, he cannot claim himself to be a member of the Board has not been agitated by the learned counsel at the time of arguments. Therefore, that issue cannot be dealt with for the reason that the other side did not have the opportunity to make any submissions in law on that court. The amended provisions of Section 9 of the Act, vide notification dated 22.7.2000 published on the same date in the Extra-ordinary Gazette authorise the ``State Government to nominate three members or 10% of the members of the elected members of the Municipality, whichever is less, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration. Second proviso thereto reads as under:-

``The State Government shall have power to withdraw a member nominated under sub-clause (2) at any time.

(6). Shri S.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no distinction between the elected and nominated member. The removal without following the procedure prescribed u/Sec. 63 of the Act is not permissible. To fortify his contention, he has placed very heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kanta Devi & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein this Court consi- dered the then existing provisions in the Act and reached the conclusion as under:-

``The question is whether there is anything in the Act which treats the nominated members in a different manner after their nomination has been made in the Act......We see no reason why we should assume a power in the Government to cancel the appointment of a nominated member, unless that power is conferred by law. The only provision, as we have already pointed out is Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which gives power of dismissal and which will include removal by the appointing authority; but the power under Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document