A member of a municipal committee is entitled to notice and hearing before being removed from office under Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

A.N.Bhandari, J.

1. These two appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raise a common question of law, viz. whether a member of a municipal committee, who is removed from office on the ground that he has flagrantly abused his position as a member, is entitled to be informed of the reasons of his proposed removal and to be afforded an opportunity of tendering an explanation.

2. The first appeal has been presented by one Shri. Harnam Singh Modi who was elected a member of the Municipal Committee of Ferozepore in the year 1955 and President of the said Municipal Committee in the same year. A meeting of the Municipal Committee was held on 12-7-1956 for the election of the two Vice-President. As only two candidates, viz, Shri Lachhman Das Kochar and Bawa Paritam Singh had been proposed for election, all that was to be determined was a to who was to be the senior and who was to be the junior Vice-President. After the ballot papers were taken out f the ballot box, the petitioner counted them and declared that eight votes had been tendered for Lachhman Das and six for Paritam Singh. Lachhman Das was accordingly declared to be the senir Vice-Preside and Bawa Paritam Singh as the Junior Vice-President.

3. After the results had been announced and after the meeting had come to a close, Paritam Singh requested the petitioner to recount the votes which had been polled for each of the two candidates. The petitioner handed over the ballot papers to Paritam Singh to satisfy himself as to the number of votes which had been cast for each candidate. Recounting of the votes disclosed the fact that seven votes had been cast in favour of each of the two candidates. Paritam Singh and his supporters requested the petitioner to place on record the mistake which had occurred in counting and the petitioner acceded to this request despite the protest of the opposite party. The result which had already been declared, however, could not be interfered with in spite of the discovery of the error. The petitioner, however, hastened to inform the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, as to the proceedings which had taken place and the sub-sequent discovery of the mistake. The Deputy Commissioner advised the petitioner to place the facts before Shri S. H. Kwatara, a Magistrate of the first class, and the same day the petitioner brought to his notice all that had taken place during and at the conclusion of the meeting.

The Magistrate sent for all the members of the Municipal Committee on 18-7-1956. The petitioner and five members of his ground met him in the Court-room, but the members of the opposite group led by Paritam Singh failed to appear. On 14-8-1956 the State Govt. issued a notification in which they declared that the seat of the petitioner as a member of the Municipal Committee had been vacated under S. 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act and that he had been disqualified for election for a period of three years under S. 16(3) of the said Act.

4. On 28-8-1956 the appellant presented a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which he complained that no notice was issued to him to show cause against the action which was proposed to be taken in regard to him, that he was not even aware of the fact that Govt. proposed to take action against him, that if an opportunity had been afforded to the appellant of showing cause he would have satisfied the Punjab Govt. that the error was committed in good faith through inadvertence and not with any intention to cause harm or injury to Bawa Paritam Singh or to favour Shri Lachhman Das, that as soon as the mistake was brought to the notice of the petitioner he took immediate steps to place on record the circumstances in which the mistake happened to be committed, that he brought all the facts to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner without loss of time, that the case of the petitioner cannot be said to fall within the mischief of S. 14 and that the punishment contemplated by S. 16(3) was wholly unjustified