PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh, Harbans Singh, D.K.Mahajan and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria JJ.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Bhagat Ram Patanga
Letter Patent Appeal No. 70 of 1964,
Decided On : APRIL 10, 1969
MUNICIPAL LAW - REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER - QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER - REASONS FOR REMOVAL - SECTION 16(1)(E) OF THE PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT, 1911 - WHETHER ORDER OF REMOVAL IS QUASI-JUDICIAL - WHETHER REASONS FOR REMOVAL ARE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN - WHETHER REASONS WERE GIVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the State of Punjab, removed two Municipal Commissioners, Bhagat Ram Patanga and Om Parkash Agnihotri, from their positions under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, for flagrant abuse of their positions during a meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee. The respondents challenged the legality and validity of their removal by filing separate petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions were allowed by the High Court, quashing the orders of removal. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the orders of removal were quasi-judicial in nature and that the State Government was required to give reasons for its decisions. However, the Court found that the State Government had in fact provided sufficient reasons for its decisions in the executive file relating to the cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of removal of the Municipal Commissioners were quasi-judicial in nature? 2. Whether the State Government was required to give reasons for its decisions? 3. Whether the State Government had in fact provided sufficient reasons for its decisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the orders of removal were quasi-judicial in nature because they were preceded by quasi-judicial proceedings, as provided in the proviso to Section 16(1) of the Act. 2. The Court held that the State Government was required to give reasons for its decisions because the orders of removal were quasi-judicial in nature. 3. The Court found that the State Government had in fact provided sufficient reasons for its decisions in the executive file relating to the cases.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the order of the High Court was reversed, and the writ petitions of the respondents were dismissed.
Mehar Singh, J.
1. A meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee took place on June 20, 1960, for the election of the President and the Vice-President of the Committee. It was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). In consequence of the behaviour of the respondents in that meeting the appellant proceeded against each under Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act 3 of 1911), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by issuing a show-cause notice, Annexure A with each of the two petitions by the respondents, Bhagat Ram Patanga and Om Parkash Agnihotri, on December 5, 1960, why action be not taken against the particular respondent under that provision. In the case of Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent, the show-cause notice read --
"It has been brought to the notice of the Government that on the 20th June, 1960, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Phagwara, convened a meeting of the newly elected members of the Municipal Committee, Phagwara, after the elections of the Committee, held on the 17-10-1959 in order to administer oath of allegiance and to conduct the election of the President of the Committee to enable the new Committee to take over the charge. You also attended that meeting at the time of the election of the office of the President. You were supporter of the group headed by Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri, member of the Committee whose candidature was proposed for this office. During the course of the meeting when Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri became unruly and began to tear his clothes, beat his chest, and create a row, you managed to bring some outsiders in the Town Hall to cause disturbance at the meeting. Moreover you did not maintain decorum or care to obey the chair. By your aforesaid action you have flagrantly abused your position as a member of the Committee within the meaning of Section 16(1)(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 . I am directed to call upon you to show cause under proviso to Section 16(1)(e) ibid, why you should not be removed from the membership of the Committee under Section 16(1)(e) ibid. You should tender your explanation to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, with an advance copy to Government together with copy (copies) of document (s), if any, so as to reach them within a period of twenty-one days from the date of despatch of this letter. In case no explanation is submitted by you within the stipulated period, it will be considered that you have no explanation to offer and Government may proceed ahead to notify your removal."
An exactly similar show-cause notice was served on Om Parkash Agnihotri respondent. In reply Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent in his letter of December 16, 1960, said -- "As to what happened in the meeting on the 20th June, 1960, is the subject-matter of a writ petition filed by the petitioner and five other Municipal Commissioners.
* * * * * * * * *
It is in the fitness of things that when the matter is pending before the High Court of Punjab no action should be taken by the Government till the matter is decided by the High Court. As will be clear from the facts stated in paras Nos. 5 to 11 of the writ petition, the conduct of the petitioner (respondent Bhagat Ram Patanga) was not at all blameworthy. On the other hand a great injustice was done to the petitioner and other five Municipal Commissioners who have filed the writ, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Phagwara who adopted illegal methods for converting the majority of Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri (respondent) into minority. The behaviour of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phagwara, was high-handed and absolutely unwarranted. The persons who came in the hall where the meeting was being held belonged to the party of the opposite group of Shri Bhagat Ram and they were made to sit in the room of the Executive Officer and had entered the meeting hall at the instance of the opposite party. They started manhandling Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri (respondent) and one of them tore his shirt. The alle
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.