The exercise of power under Section 15 (1) (e) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, is open to judicial scrutiny, and the decision of the State Government to remove a member from office must be based on a flagrant abuse of position by the member.

P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee, Chamba in 1967. One Miss Padma Vati, daughter Mr. Amar Nath, submitted an application to the competent authority for the grant of eligibility certificate in 1968. A representation was made in the said application that Miss Padma Vati had resided in Mohalla Kashmiri, Chamba for more than 3 years prior to the date of the application. The aforesaid averment made in the application was verified to be correct by the petitioner. On the basis of the said application, duly verified by the petitioner, Miss Padma Vati was granted eligibility certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Chamba on March 15, 1969.

2. It appears that an enquiry came to be made subsequently into the circumstances leading to the grant of eligibility certificate to Miss Padma Vati during the course of which it transpired that she had passed the matriculation examination and the J.B.T. examination from Jullundur in 1967 and 1968 respectively. Besides, her parents resided at Chandigarh and not in Chamba. It thus, transpired that the eligibility certificate was obtained by her on a misrepresentation.

3. A noticed dated April 20, 1971,-Annexure PA, was thereupon issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership of the Municipal Committee and disqualified from contesting elections under the provisions of Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The show cause notice mentioned that by verification of wrong facts contained in the application of Miss Padma Vati, the petitioner had flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Municipal Committee and rendered himself liable for removal under Section 15 (1) (e) of the Act.

4. The petitioner showed cause by his reply dated May 5, 1971, Annexure PB. The petitioner asserted that the verification made by him was correct. According to the petitioner, Miss Padma Vati was educated and maintained by her sister Smt. Swaran Lata at Chamba since 1966. The petitioner also pleaded that the verification of the application was an act which had no nexus or connection with his position as a member of the Municipal Committee and that no action for his removal under Section 15 of the Act could, therefore, be initiated against him.

5. By the impugned order dated June 11, 1971, Annexure PC, the petitioner was removed from the membership of the Municipal committee, Chamba, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 on the ground that the verification done by the petitioner was "wrong" and that thereby he had flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Municipal Committee. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition.

6. Section 15, sub-section (1), of the Act empowers the State Government notification to remove any member of a Municipal Committee if, in its opinion, any one or more of the ground(s) set out there in is made out. The ground which is relevant for the present purpose is found enumerated in clause (e) which reads as under ; "(e) if, in the opinion of the State Government, he has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the committee or has through negligence or misconduct been responsible for the loss, or misapplication on of any money or property of the committee ;"

7. In Panna Lal v. The Secretary to Government Haryana Department and another, 1968) LXX Punjab Law Reporter 244, Section 16 (1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act), which is in pari materia, fell for consideration before Tek Chand, J The learned judge, while construing the words "flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Committee", made the following pertinent observations at page 247 : "flagrantly means gloringly, notoriously scandalously. Literally flagrant means blazing burning, flaming, glowing. In respect of an offence or a misconduct, it is used in the sense of glaring, notorious, scandlous