An inquiry under Rule 68 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1952, is a quasi judicial proceeding and the procedure adopted therein must conform to the well-established norms of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations afforded.

1. The petitioner was elected as President, Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda, and the proceedings of the meeting of April 6, 1970, in which the election took place, were quashed by the State Government respondent by an order dated June 23, 1970, purported to have been passed under Section 236 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Civil Writ No. 2309 of 1970 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the notification annulling the said proceedings quashed. The State Government has in exercise of powers conferred on it by the Act. framed Municipal Election Rules. 1952 (described hereinafter as the Rules). Election to any office in a Municipal Committee cannot be enjoined in Rule 52 be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the rules. A petition in this behalf must contain a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the petitioner relies to challenge the election and there are then some other procedural formalities required to be complied with, like deposit of security etc. Non-compliance with the rules could result in dismissal of the election petition. Rule 59 requires that an enquiry shall be held in a place accessible to the public and that notice of the time and place of enquiry is given to the parties not less than seven days before the first day of the enquiry. The grounds for declaring election void are stated in Rule 63 which is not necessary to reproduce for the purposes of the present writ petition. The State Government has by virtue of Rule 68 been conferred a power to order an enquiry suo motu into the conduct of any election if there is reason to suspect that a corrupt practice or material irregularity has been committed. It will be useful to reproduce the said rule at this stage in extenso:-

-

"The Punjab Government may of its own motion direct an enquiry to be held into the conduct of any election if there is reason to suspect that a corrupt practice or material irregularity has been committed and the case shall be dealt with so far as may be in the manner prescribed in these rules."

2. To appreciate the origin and nature of the instant dispute, which has a chequered history, it is necessary to state a few more facts. Elections to the Municipal Committee were held in October, 1967, and thirteen members were elected. The State Government at one stage nominated a President, but this nomination was quashed by an order of this Court made on April 3, 1970, in Civil Writ No. 3014 of 1969. A meeting was then held on April 6, 1970, to elect a new President to which office the petitioner successfully contested. The proceedings of the meeting were, however, considered by the State Government to be irregular and it annulled those proceedings under Section 236 of the Act. When this action was impugned in a writ petition (Civil Writ No. 2309 of 1970) preferred by six of the Municipal Commissioners an objection was taken that the correct course for the State Government to nullify the election of the President was to take action under Rule 68, if so advised, and not to proceed under Section 236 of the Act. No opinion was expressed by the Bench as to whether an action under Rule 68 was competent since no such issue arose in that case. The writ petition was however, allowed. The State Government respondent afterwards issued to the petitioner the impugned notice dated March 17, 1971 (Annexure H) calling upon him to appear in the office of the Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul on the next day i.e., March 18, 1971, at 10 A. M. and produce his defence about a complaint. A copy of the document was attached with the notice which purported to be on behalf of the Deputy Director, Local Government, who as stated therein been appointed as Election Commissioner under S. 247 of the Act read with the aforesaid R. 68. The complaint had been addressed by some Municipal Commissioners to the Minist