HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
V. BHARGAVA, J.
Purushottam Chandra
Versus
State of U. P.
Civil Misc. Writ No.487 of 1954
Decided On : 26-08-1954
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - U.P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1916 - SECTION 40(3) - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - JURISDICTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - OPINION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - ENQUIRY BY STATE GOVERNMENT - SUSPENSION OF MEMBER - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - MALA FIDE ACTION - IRRELEVANT.
Fact of the Case:
Purushottam Chandra, a member of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad, started constructing a Dharamshala on land acquired by the board for development schemes without complying with the provisions of Section 178 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Land Acquisition Officer recommended that the building be taken over without compensation. The petitioner obtained a permit for cement from the Planning Officer. The Deputy Collector inspected the site and found that the construction had resumed. The petitioner was served with a charge of contravening Section 178 and abusing his position as a member of the board. The Government suspended him pending an enquiry. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain the State Government from proceeding under Section 40(3) of the Act, to quash the suspension order, and to direct the Government to hold an enquiry through a Judicial Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government had jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 40(3) of the Act and that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference with the Government's proceedings. The court also held that the Government had the power to suspend the petitioner under Section 40(5) and that the petitioner's allegations of mala fide action on the part of the opposite party were irrelevant.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 40(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916? 2. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for interference with the Government's proceedings? 3. Whether the Government had the power to suspend the petitioner under Section 40(5) of the Act? 4. Whether the petitioner's allegations of mala fide action on the part of the opposite party were relevant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to pass orders under Section 40(3) of the Act is vested in the State Government only. 2. The petitioner had not made out a case for interference with the Government's proceedings because the Government had formed an opinion that the petitioner had flagrantly abused his position as a member of the board and had given him an opportunity to explain his conduct. 3. The Government had the power to suspend the petitioner under Section 40(5) of the Act because the Government was instituting an enquiry for the purpose of taking action under Section 40(3). 4. The petitioner's allegations of mala fide action on the part of the opposite party were irrelevant because the writs were sought to restrain the State Government from taking action against the petitioner and the petitioner nowhere alleged any mala fides on the part of the State Government itself.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
2. It appears that some land within the limits of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the development schemes of the municipal board by a notification issued in the U.P. Gazette on 10-7-1947. On part of this land, the petitioner started constructions which he called a Dharamshala. These constructions were started without complying with the provisions of S.178, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. A statement about compensation payable to the owners of the land was prepared and sent with a report by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Collector. That report is dated 14-10-1952. The report mentions that, on this land, a building known as Dharamshala, constructed by the petitioner, was standing. The officer, sending the report, was of the opinion that since the constructions were made after the notification relating to acquisition of land, the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation in respect of this building. It was, however, suggested that it may not be necessary to have the building removed and the building may be taken over without payment of any compensation whatsoever.
It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this recommendation in the report was accepted by the Collector and was made a part of the award. Even subsequently, the petitioner obtained a permit for 200 bags of cement from the Planning Officer on 2-1-1953. There were thereafter some reports to the authorities and to the Government, as a result of which, on 27-12-1953, this site was inspected by Shri D.N. Tandon, Deputy Collector posted at Ghaziabad, who gave a report that the work on this Dharamshala had been started again from 23-11-1953. At the time when he went for inspection, he found that the building had already been constructed and the labourers were plastering the floor and roof of the building.
Thereafter, on 27-4-1954, a charge, which was communicated to the District Magistrate of Meerut by the Assistant Secretary to Government, U.P. Municipal Department, was served on the petitioner by the District Magistrate. The charge was that"the petitioner had contravened the provisions of S.178, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and the building bye-laws made thereunder when soon after his election as a member of the Ghaziabad Municipal Board he re-started on 28-11-1953, the unauthorised construction of a building on plot No.827 of land outside Sihani Gate, which land had been acquired by Government for the Ghaziabad Municipal Board for their development schemes. Being in full knowledge of these facts, he had, by his said action, so flagrantly abused his position as member of the Board as to render his continuance as member detrimental to public interest."
The Government also passed an order on 8-5-1954, suspending the petitioner from membership of the Ghaziabad Municipal Board pending enquiry into the charge mentioned above.
The petitioner on these facts moved this petition in this Court on 17-5-1954. In this petition, as originally moved and subsequently amended, the following four prayers have been made:
"(1) That the respondent No.1 be ordered by a writ of prohibition (to refrain from passing any orders pursuant) to S.40(3), U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916. Note - The part within the brackets does not occur in the original petition presented in this Court but learned counsel for the petitioner read out this part from his copy in order to explain what this prayer in the original petition was really to be as the prayer actually put in the petition appeared to be meaningless.
(2) That the order of suspension under S.40(5) of the said Act be kept in abeyance pending the determination of this petition and the order of suspension be quashed.
(3) That the respondent No.1 be further ordered to hold an enquiry into the allegations against th
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.