The availability of alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when there is a violation of natural justice or when the decision-making process is without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification as contained in Memo No. 4038 dated 17.12.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Ward Councilor of Ward No. 39 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation declaring him unfit for the same in view of so called enquiry report and recommendation of the enquiry officer (the respondent No. 3) finding him guilty under Sections 18(2), 543(1) and 584(1) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2011’) and Rule 3.11 of the Jharkhand Municipality Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2020’]. Further prayer has been made to quash the entire enquiry proceeding conducted by the respondent No. 3 in connection with Complaint Case No. 02/2020.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was elected as a Ward Councilor of Ward No. 39 (Dhurwa) of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and he took oath of the said post on 27.04.2018. He received a notice bearing letter No. 2850 dated 01.06.2018 from the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand annexing a copy of complaint dated 08.05.2018 filed by the respondent No. 4 seeking cancellation of his election against which he was asked to file para-wise reply of allegation made against him. The petitioner filed reply to the said letter on 27.06.2018 denying the allegation levelled in the same and also questioning the identity of the complainant. Thereafter, the Urban Development and Housing Department transferred the matter to the State Election Commission, Jharkhand to exercise power conferred under Rule 112 of the Jharkhand Municipal Election and Election Petition Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2012’]. The State Election Commission accordingly issued notice to the petitioner vide memo No. 50 dated 20.01.2020, however, again remitted the matter to the Urban Development and Housing Department keeping in view the amendment made in Section 18(2) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, amended vide Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby the power to adjudicate the complaint filed under Section 18(1) was entrusted to the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner again received notice as contained in letter No. 2662 dated 28.10.2020 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3 enclosing a copy of the supplementary complaint dated 08.06.2020 filed before the State Election Commission under Rule 112 of the Rules, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 3 and denied the allegation levelled against him. The petitioner again received notice bearing letter No. 1339 dated 31.03.2021 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3 acting as an Enquiry Officer within the meaning of the Rules, 2020 directing him to appear before the enquiry committee on 05.04.2021 at 11.30 A.M. The petitioner accordingly appeared and filed reply/preliminary objection to the same denying the allegation and challenging the validity of entire proceeding, however, the respondent No. 3 did not consider the same. The petitioner also filed representation before the respondent No. 2 on 12.04.2021 regarding the irregularities being committed by the respondent No. 3 in conducting so called enquiry under the Rules, 2020, however, the same was not responded. Thereafter, due to outbreak of second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was adjourned from time to time and suddenly the impugned order was passed on 16.12.2021 (communicated vide memo No. 4038 dated 17.12.2021) cancelling the election of the petitioner as the Ward Councilor of Ward No. 39 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, submits that neither the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer-the re