SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(MP) 112

2003(2) JLJ 429
Rajendra Menon, J.
Daulat Ram Gupta v. State of M.P. and another
W.P. No. 1976 of 2002; Decided on 20.1.2003.

Advocates:
RD. Jain with Sameer Jain and Ashish Saraswat for petitioner;
K.N. Gupta, Govt. Advocate for respondents; S.B. Mishra with RN. Tiwari for intervenor.

Headnote:(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 41-A -- elected President -- power of removal cannot be exercised until and unless strong and cogent reasons are available.

        The submissions of Shri RD. Jain, learned Sr. Counsel can be summarised as under :

        (1) The petitioner being a duly elected President of the Council had a legal right to continue in the Office until his term is completed. Power under section 41-A can be exercised only if it is found that during his tenure the petitioner has committed such grave and serious irregularities which warrants his removal from the Office in the interest of public.

        (2) For the said act the earlier President Smt. Krishna Gupta was proceeded against. Initially she was removed but on review as is evident from Annexure P-3 and P-4A, her removal was suspended and finally proceedings were dropped. It was held that she has not committed any illegality and further proceedings were dropped. Not only that, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was sanctioned to her for completing the work. If no irregularity was found in the aforesaid work done by Smt. Krishna Gupta then no action can be taken against the petitioner.

        (3) The President of the Council discharges duties in accordance with the powers and duties contemplated under section 51 of the Municipalities Act and when the President performs his duties, he only presides over the meeting and regulates and conducts the same. The work was done in the present case after resolution was passed on 5.3.2000 by the Council. The resolution was passed by the Council in the interest of the city and therefore it was the council which was responsible for passing of the resolution and executing the work for which independent action cannot be taken only against the President. The Council having taken a decision by majority, the responsibility could not be fastened singly on the President. That apart, it is submitted by him that the provisions .of natural justice have been violated, in the show cause notice there is no mention with regard to report submitted by the Collector or recommendations made by the Collector in his order dated 22.10.2001, taking action on the basis of the order of the Collector dated 22.10.2001 which was not part of the record and for which no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner is illegal.[Para 5

        Held: President of the Council is elected by direct voting in a democratic manner. That being so, while exercising power of removing such a elected Office bearer the State Government is duty bound to take extra care and caution and power under section 41-A cannot be exercised until and unless strong and cogent reasons are available for taking such an action. 1999(1) JLJ 277 relied on. (2001) 6 SCC 260 followed. [Para 10

        (2) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 41-A and proviso -- power of removing any office bearer -- can be exercised only on formation of opinion by the State Government -- proviso provides for giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard.

        Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961 empowers the State Government at any time to remove the President, Vice President or Chairman of any Council if a opinion is formed by the State Government that continuance of such a person is not desirable in public interest or in the interest of the councilor it is found that he is incapable of performing his duties or he is working against the provisions of the Act or any rule made there under. From the aforesaid it is clear that the State Government has to form an opinion with regard to the desirability, interest of the public, interest of the council and the capacity of the person to perform his duties and then take action for removal under the aforesaid provision. However, proviso to section contemplates giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned before action is taken. [Para 9

        (3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 41-A and 323 -- action of removal taken on the basis of order of Collector passed under S. 323 -- such order never made part of show couse notice -- action is illegal.

        Admittedly, the order of the Collector dated 22.10.2001 has been relied upon and it forms the basis for passing the impugned order. This order was never part of the proceedings which was there as per the show cause notice Annexure P-14. ... Merely because the aforesaid document was available on record it cannot be accepted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The facts that have come on record in the said order if were to be used for the purpose of making the petitioner responsible for the allegations levelled against him, it was incumbent on the respondents to specifically intimate to the petitioner and to make it part of the show cause notice and allegations levelled against him. [Para 14

        (4) Account Rules, 1971 (M.P.) -- Rr. 130 to 133 -- M.P. Municipalities (The Conduct of Business of the Mayor-in-Council/ President-in-Council and the Powers and Functions of the Authorities) Rules, 1998 -- Rr. 5 to 8 -- Rules of 1971 repealed by 1998 Rules -order of Collector passed taking note of1971 Rules is unsustainable.

        The only rule applicable is rule 132 for the purpose of administrative sanction or technical approval. The other rules as provided in rule 130 with regard to procedure for sanction of work, rule 131 with regard to financial power stood repealed after coming into force the Rules of 1998. This aspect of the matter and change brought about in the rules was not at all considered by the Collector while passing the order dated 22.10.2001 to hold that the resolution is unsustainable being in violation of rules 131, 132, 133. The Collector failed to consider the fact that after enactment of Rules of 1998, procedure has been changed and he was required to examine the procedure followed in accordance with the Rules of 1998 and in not doing so, he has committed material irregularity and in that view of the matter, the order dated 22.10.2001 prima facie seems to be unsustainable on merit also. [Para 17

        (5) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 41-A -- action of removal taken against ex-president dropped -- on the basis of same action, new President cannot be proceeded against.

        It is surprising that the Government has taken action against the petitioner on this ground when the Government itself vide Annexure P- 4A had set aside the order dated 30.9.1999 issued against Smt. Krishna Gupta, proceedings against her were dropped and subsequently a sum of Rs. 10 lacs were sanctioned on 11.11.1999 vide Annexure P-7 for the purpose of construction of the roads. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the Government while passing the impugned order, The Government having dropped the proceedings against Smt. Krishna Gupta cannot say that the petitioner committed irregularities or knowingly continued with the same irregularities. It is suprising that when no irregularity or illegality was found in the action of Smt. Krishna Gupta, how same action if continued by the petitioner can be termed as irregular or illegal. [Para 20

        (6) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- administrative order -- High Court cannot act as appellate Court -- may still scrutinise such order in judicial review and may interfere.

        I am only required to scrutinise the impugned order Annexure P-1 in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law. No doubt while reviewing administrative decision this Court cannot act as an appellate authority but in the course of judicial review if it is found that the order is totally perverse, based on extraneous consideration and without following the principles of natural justice this Court can interfere. 1999(1) JLJ 277 relied on. (2001) 6 SCC 260 followed. [Para 21

        (7) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 41-A -- action of removal of elected office-bearer -- singular or casual aberration or failure to exercise power is not enough. 2001(6) SCC 260 followed. [Para 22

        (8) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.)--S.41-A -- requirement of removal under -- is misconduct or incapacity of holding office -- no finding to that effect recorded in removal order -- order is illegal.

        The requirement of section 41A is misconduct or incapacity of the office bearer to hold the office and the magnitude of the allegations is such that his continuation is undesirable in public interest or the interest of the council. In the order impugned there is no such finding recorded not only with regard to the allegations or misconduct or its magnitude but interest of the councilor public has not at all been considered. [Para 22

       ¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41d&fuokZfpr v/;{k∈ ls gVkus dh ‘kfDr ç;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh tc rd lqn`<+ rFkk rdZlaxr dkj.k miyC/k ugha gksA

       fo}ku T;s"B dkmUlsy Jh vkj-Mh- tSu ds fuosnu fuEukuqlkj laf{kIr fd, tk ldrs gSa%

       ¼1½ ;kph dks ifj"kn~ dk lE;d:is.k fuokZfpr v/;{k gksus ds dkj.k viuh inkof/k iw.kZ gksus rd vius in ij cus jgus dk fof/kd vf/kdkj FkkA /kkjk 41&d ds v/khu ‘kfDr dsoy rc ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gS ;fn ik;k tk, fd viuh vof/k ds nkSjku ;kph us ,slh Hkkjh rFkk xaHkhj vfu;ferrk,¡ dh gSa ftuls yksd fgr esa mls in ls gVk;k tkuk okaNuh; gks tkrk gSA

       ¼2½ mDr dk;Z ds fy, iwoZ v/;{k Jherh Ñ".kk xqIrk ds fo#) dk;Zokgh gqbZ FkhA vkjaHk esa mls gVk;k x;k Fkk ijarq iqufoZyksdu gksus ij mldh inP;qfr fuyafcr gks xbZ] rFkk varr% dk;Zokgh jksd nh xbZ] tSlk mikca/k ih&3 rFkk ih&3 rFkk ih&4, ls lkf{;r gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd mlus dksbZ Hkh vfu;ferrk ugha dh gS rFkk vkxs dh dk;Zokgh jksd nh xbZ FkhA ;g ugha] mls dk;Z iw.kZ djus ds fy, #-10 yk[k dh jkf‘k eatwj dh xbZ FkhA ;fn Jherh Ñ".kk xqIrk }kjk fd, x, iwoksZDr dk;Z esa Hkh vfu;ferrk ugha ikbZ xbZ Fkh rc ;kph ds fo#) dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA

       ¼3½ ifj"kn dk v/;{k uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 51 ds v/khu vuq/;kr ‘kfDr;ksa vkSj drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djrk gS rFkk tc v/;{k vius drZZO;ksa dk ikyu djrk gS rc og lfEeyu dh v/;{krk ek= djrk gS vkSj mls fofu;fer vkSj lapkfyr djrk gSA çLrqr ekeys esa dk;Z 5-3-2000 dks ifj"kn }kjk ladYi ikfjr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ fd;k x;k FkkA ifj"kn }kjk ladYi uxj ds fgr esa ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% ladYi ds ikj.k vkSj dk;Z ds fu"iknu ds fy, ifj"kn mÙkjnk;h Fkh] blds fy, dsoy v/;{k ds fo#) Lora= dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA ifj"kn~ }kjk cgqer ls fofu‘p; fd, tkus ds dkj.k mÙkjnkf;Ro vdsys v/;{k ij ugha Mkyk tk ldrk FkkA blds vfrfjDr] muds }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k gqvk gS] dkj.k crkvks lwpuk esa dyDVj }kjk is‘k dh xbZ fjiksVZ vFkok dyDVj }kjk vius vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-2001 esa dh xbZ flQkfj‘kksa ds ckjs esa mYys[k ugha gS( dyDVj ds vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-2001 ds vk/kkj ij tks vfHkys[k dk Hkkx ugha Fkk rFkk ftlds fy, ;kph dks lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] dkjZokbZ djuk voS/k FkkA ¿iSjk 5

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ifj"kn~ dk v/;{k yksdrkaf=d jhfr ls lh/ks ernku }kjk fuokZfpr gksrk gSA ,slk gksus ds dkj.k] bls fuokZfpr inkf/kdkjh dks gVkus dh ‘kfDr ç;qDr djrs le; jkT; ljdkj vfrfjDr lrdZrk vkSj lko/kkuh cjrus dks drZO;kc) gS rFkk /kkjk 41&d ds v/khu ‘kfDr rc rd ç;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh tc rd ,slh dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, lqn`<+ vkSj rdZlaxr dkj.k miyC/k ugha gksaA 1999¼1½ ts ,y ts 277 voyafcrA ¼2001½6 ,l lh lh 260 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 10

       ¼2½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41&d rFkk ijarqd&fdlh inkf/kdkjh dks gVkus dh ‘kfDr&jkT ljdkj }kjk jk; cuus ij gh ç;qDr dh tk ldrh gS&ijarqd esa mls lqus tkus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn, tkus dk mica/k gSaA

       uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 41&d esa jkT; ljdkj dks fdlh Hkh le; fdlh Hkh ifj"kn~ ds v/;{k] mik/;{k vFkok ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks gVkus ds fy, l‘kDr fd;k x;k gS ;fn jkT; ljdkj dh jk; cu tk, fd ,sls O;fDr dk in ij cuk jguk yksd fgr esa vFkok ifj"kn~ ds fgr esa okaNuh; ugha gS] vFkok ;fn ik;k tk, fd og vius drZO;ksa ds ikyu esa vleFkZ gS vFkok og vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds ;k rn/khu fojfpr fdlh fu;e ds fo#) dk;Z dj jgk gSA iwoksZDr ls Li"V gS fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk O;fDr dh okaNuh;rk] yksdfgr] ifj"kn~ ds fgr rFkk drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds mlds lkeF;Z ds ckjs esa jk; cukbZ tkuk gksrh gS] rFkk rc iwoksZDr mica/k ds v/khu in ls gVk, tkus ds fy, dkjZokbZ dh tkuk gksrh gSA rFkkfi] /kkjk ds ijarqd esa] dkjZokbZ fd, tkus ls iwoZ lac) O;fDr dks lqus tkus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tkuk vuq/;kr gSA ¿iSjk 9

       ¼3½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41&d rFkk 323&/kkjk 323 ds v/khu dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds vk/kkj ij in ls gVk, tkus dh dkjZokbZ&,slk vkns‘k dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dk Hkkx ugha&dkjZokbZ voS/k gSA

       LohÑrr% dyDVj dk vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-2001 voyafcr gS rFkk vkf{kIr vkns‘k ikfjr djus dk og vk/kkj gSA ;g vkns‘k dkj.k crkvks lwpuk mikca/k ih&14 ds vuqlkj dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dk Hkkx ugha FkkA---dsoy blfy, fd iwoksZDr nLrkost vfHkys[k ij miyC/k Fkk] ;g Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;kph çfrdwyr% çHkkfor ugha gqvkA ;fn mu rF;ksa dk] tks mDr vkns‘k esa vfHkys[k ij vk, gSa] ;kph ds fo#) yxk, x, vfHkdFkuksa ds fy, ;kph dks mÙkjnk;h Bgjkus ds ç;kstukFkZ mi;ksx fd; tkuk Fkk rc çR;FkhZx.k }kjk ;kph dks fofufnZ"Vr% lwfpr fd;k tkuk vkSj mls dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ,oa mlds fo#) yxk, x, vfHkdFkuksa dk Hkkx cuk;k tkuk vko‘;d FkkA ¿iSjk 14

       ¼4½ ys[kk fu;e] 1971 ¼e-ç-½&fu-130 ls 133&e-ç- uxjikfydk ¼es;j&bu&dkmfUlyk çslhMsaV bu&dkmfUly ds dkedkt dk lapkyu rFkk çkf/kdkfj;ksa dh ‘kfDr;k¡ ,oa drZO;½ fu;e] 1998&fu-5 ls 8&lu~ 1971 ds fu;e lu~ 1998 ds fu;eksa }kjk fujflr&lu~ 1971 ds fu;eksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ikfjr dyDVj dk vkns‘k dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

       ç‘kklfud eatwjh vFkok rduhdh vuqeksnu ds ç;kstukFkZ ykxw gksus okyk ,dek= fu;e] fu-132 gSA fu;e 130 esa dk;Z dh eatwjh ds ckjs esa] rFkk fu;e 131 esa foÙkh; ‘kfDr ds ckjs esa ;Fkk micaf/kr vU; fu;e] lu~ 1998 ds fu;eksa ds çofrZr gksus ds i‘pkr~ fujflr gks x,A ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, fd fu;e 131] 132 vkSj 133 ds vfrØe.k esa gksus ds dkj.k ladYi dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-2001 ikfjr djrs le; dyDVj }kjk fo"k; ds bl igyw rFkk fu;eksa esa fd, x, ifjorZu ij fcYdqy Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA dyDVj }kjk bl rF; ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldk fd lu~ 1998 ds fu;eksa ds vf/kfu;e ds i‘pkr~ çfØ;k cny xbZ gS rFkk mlls lu~ 1998 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dk ijh{k.k visf{kr Fkk] rFkk ,slk ugha djus ls mlus lkjoku~ vfu;ferrk dh gS rFkk bl n`f"V ls] vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-2001 çFken`"V;k xq.kkxq.k ij Hkh dk;e j[kus ;ksX; çrhr ugha gksrkA ¿iSjk 17

       ¼5½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41&d&iwoZ v/;{k ds fo#) dh xbZ in ls gVk, tkus dh dkjZokbZ jksdh xbZ&mlh dkjZokbZ ij u, v/;{k ds fo#) dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA

       vk‘p;Z dh ckr gS fd ljdkj }kjk ;kph ds fo#) bl vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ dh xbZ gS tcfd Lo;a ljdkj }kjk gh mikca/k ih&4, }kjk Jherh Ñ".kk xqIrk ds fo#) tkjh fd;k x;k vkns‘k fnukad 30-9-1999 vikLr fd;k x;k Fkk] mlds fo#) dk;Zokgh jksdh xbZ Fkh rFkk ckn esa mikca/k ih&7 }kjk 11-11-1999 dks lM+dksa ds fuekZ.k ds ç;kstukFkZ #-10 yk[k dh jkf‘k eatwj dh xbZ FkhA vkf{kIr vkns‘k ikfjr djrs le; ljdkj }kjk ekeys ds bl igyw ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;k FkkA Jherh Ñ".kk xqIrk ds fo#) dk;Zokgh jksd nsus ds dkj.k ljdkj }kjk ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;kph us vfu;ferrk,¡ dh vFkok tku dj Hkh mu vfu;ferrkvksa dks fujarj j[kkA vk‘p;Z dh ckr gS fd tc Jherh Ñ".kk xqIrk dh dkjZokbZ esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk vFkok voS/krk ugha ikbZ xbZ Fkh] rc ogh dkjZokbZ ;fn ;kph }kjk fujarj j[kh tk,] vfu;fer vFkok voS/k dSls dgh tk ldrh gSA ¿iSjk 20

       ¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-226 rFkk 227&ç‘kkldh; vkns‘k&mPp U;k;ky;] vihy U;k;ky; ds :i esa dk;Z ugha dj ldrk&rFkkfi] U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa ,sls vkns‘k dh laoh{kk dh tk ldrh gS rFkk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       eq>ls dsoy fof/k ds iwoksZDr fu:i.k ds çdk‘k esa vkf{kIr vkns‘k mikca/k ih&1 dh laoh{kk visf{kr gSA fu%lansg] ç‘kkldh; fofu‘p; dk iqufoZyksdu djrs le; ;g U;k;ky; vihy çkf/kdj.k ds :i esa dk;Z ugha dj ldrk] ijarq ;fn U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ds vuqØe esa ik;k tk, fd vkns‘k iw.kZr% foi;ZLr gS] vlaca) ckrksa ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk mlesa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k ugha gqvk gS] rc bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1999¼1½ ts ,y ts 277 voyafcrA ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 260 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21

       ¼7½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41&d&fuokZfpr inkf/kdkjh dks in ls gVk, tkus dh dkjZokbZ&,dek= vFkok vkdfLed foiFku ;k ‘kfDr ç;qDr djus esa foQyrk i;kZIr ugha gSA ¼2001½6 ,l lh lh 260 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 22

       ¼8½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 41&d∈ ls gVk, tkus ds fy, vis{kk&vopkj vFkok in /kkj.k djus dh vleFkZrk gS∈ ls gVk, tkus ds vkns‘k esa bl vk‘k; dk dksbZ Hkh fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha&vkns‘k voS/k gSA

       /kkjk 41&d dh vis{kk gS vopkj vFkok in /kkj.k djus dh inkf/kdkjh dh vleFkZrk rFkk ;g fd vfHkdFku dk vk;ke ,slk gks fd yksdfgr esa vFkok ifj"kn~ ds fgr esa mldk cuk jguk vokaNuh; gks tk,A vkf{kIr vkns‘k esa] vopkj ds vfHkdFkuksa ;k muds vk;ke ds ckjs esa ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha gSa] ,slk gh ugha gS] vfirq ifj"kn vFkok turk ds fgr ij Hk fcYdqy Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¿iSjk 22

ORDER

1. The petitioner, elected President of Municipal Council Shivpuri has filed this petition questioning the tenability and validity of the order Annexure P-l dated 13.9.2002 passed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 41A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 removing him from office.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as President of the Council on 27.12.1999, he took charge of the Office on 4.1.2000 and since then had been discharging the duties when by the impugned order he has been removed.

3. It is averred by the petitioner that prior to him one Smt. Krishna Gupta was President of the Municipal Council, during her tenure a resolution was passed by the Council for the purpose of laying down roads with asphalt, the Council sanctioned the bid, invited tender's and contract was given for construction of Ashpalt road on hotmix method. It is averred in the petition that for the said purpose a sum of Rs. 24 lacs was sanctioned vide resolution No. 13 dated 20.1.1998. Under this resolution work was started and work up to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs was completed when certain objections with regard to the aforesaid construction was raised and complaints were made against the then President Smt. Krishna Gupta. Summary enquiry was initiated and by order dated 30.9.1999 Annexure P-2 the State Government, exercising power under section 41A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 removed Smt. Krishna Gupta from the Office of the President. The said Smt. Krishna Gupta filed an application for review on 10.10.1993 vide Annexure P-3 before the Minister concerned, who passed an order on this application suspending the order of removal. Similar orders were passed on another application Annexure P-4 dated 12.10.1999 submitted by Smt. Krishna Gupta. Minister took up the matter in review and thereafter vide Annexure P-4A orders were passed by the State Government canceling and revoking the removal of Smt. Krishna Gupta and the order of her removal dated 30.9.1999 Annexure P-2 was cancelled. It is also averred in the petition that one MLA Shri Brij Singh had also taken up the matter with the Minister concerned and he had complained that removal of Krishna Gupta is illegal and recommended for her reinstatement. Annexure P-5 is the letter of the MLA in this regard. It is averred in the petition that after hearing Smt. Krishna Gupta and on consideration of the material not only was her removal revoked and cancelled but she was permitted to continue in the office of the President and a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was sanctioned by the State Govt. on 11.11.1999 Annexure P-7 for completing the work.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that after he had taken over charge of President the State Govt. had santioned Rs. 7.5 lacs for road construction. After the aforesaid sanction was received a resolution was passed by the Municipal Council on 5.3.2000 for the purpose of constructing three roads as per details given in para 5.9 of the petition, copy of the resolution is filed as Annexure P-8. It is further averred that after the petitioner took over the work of ashpalt was done in accordance with rules, after due approval and sanction from the Executive Engineer PWD as is evident from letter Annexure P-9, it is averred by the petitioner that the work was done by the Council at a lower rate then the prevailing rate which was Rs. 115.88% above CSR. It is stated that in-spite of the fact that CSR had increased by 20% on 1.8.1999 as seen from Annexure P-10. Council got the work done at a much lower rate compared• to that done by the previous President Smt. Krishna Gupta. Thereafter for the purpose of constructing various other roads, resolution was passed on 8.2.2001 sanctioning an amount of Rs. 6.19 lacs. It is the case of the petitioner that the said resolution dated 8.2.2001 was taken up in a proceeding under section 323 of the Municipalities Act and the matter ultimately culminated as the Collector made cert

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top