Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Geeta Suresh Chaudhari v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.2575of 2017 (Gwalior); Decided on 3.8.2017
Held : In the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the basis of cumulative analysis, petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and election petition is not an effective remedy for challenging the proceedings of recall to the petitioner and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances and law discussed above, the petition is hereby allowed. The process initiated for proposal for recall against the petitioner is hereby set aside and resultantly, all consequential proceedings including the issuance of notification dated 7.7.2017 pales into insignificance and are hereby set aside. 2005(3) JLJ 251, 2005(2) JLJ 379, ILR (2007) MP 1203, 2004(1) LJL 303, (2004)2 SCC 65, (2006)11 SCC 356 and (2006)6 SCC 430 referred to. AIR 1993 SC 2042 and (2016)4 SCC 429 distinguished.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226/227 and 243ZG -- M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 -- Ss.20, 22, 41 and 47(1)(2) -- petition under -- maintainability of -- petitioner is challenging arbitrary exercise of power -- exercised by respondents which led to process of recall -- petitioner has no alternative remedy which is effective and efficacious by way of election petition -- if breach of statutory provisions violations of fundamental rights and action taken to be contrary to law are pointed out -- interference can be made -- petitioner has established mala fide on part of respondents while processing proposal -- then subsequent action of issuance of notification has no material -- petition is maintainable -- petition allowed.
Held : That the ground for declaring the election or nomination to be void are grounds which may be available to a person who is challenging the fresh election and not the process which led to the situation of Recall. Petitioner may have opportunity to challenge the process of recall after the notification of Election Commission but petitioner has no remedy in the statue to challenge the circumstances which led to recall. Grounds as enumerated in section 22 of the Act of 1961 do not includ grounds for recall in expressed terms and if grounds are not available to the petitioner in expressed terms to agitate, then Election Petition does not offer effective and efficacious remedy to the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner cannot be rendered remedy less and on this count also, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
it is well settled in law that if the breach of statutory provisions, violation of fundamental rights and action taken to be contrary to law are pointed out, interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made. Writ Appeal No.61/2017 decided on 22.2.2017, (2016)9 SCC 749, (2009)14 SCC 132 and (2000)8 SCC 216 referred to.
(3) Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R.2(d) -- M.P. Municipalities, Act, 1961 -- Ss.41 and 47(1)(2) -- proceedings for recall
-- election included process for recall also -- but petitioner has no remedy in statute to challenge circumstances which led to recall -- election Commission and other Councillors not necessary party -- because no remedy is sought against him -- challenge is mainly against action of respondents No.2 -- notification is consequential only -- petition allowed.
Held : Election Commission and other councillors are not necessary party because no relief is sought against them. As such, at the time of filing of petition, Election Commission was not in picture and Commission could not have stood for the action of other respondents. Here, the challenge was mainly against the action of respondent No.2. Notification dated 7.7.2017 is consequential only.
¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½ & /kkjk 20] 22] 41 rFkk 47¼1½¼2½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226@227 rFkk 243 ¼;½¼N½ & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk fuokZpu fu;e] 1994 & fuŒ 2¼?k½ & izfdz;k iqu% cqykuk & bl vk/kkj ij fd rhu pkSFkkbZ ls vf/kd ik"kZnksa }kjk iqu% cqykus dk izLrko izLrqr fd;k & mica/kksa ds v/khu vk{ksfir & dyDVj dk Lo;a dk lek/kku ugha & ijarq izR;k;ksftr izkf/kdkjh dk le/kku gqvk & rFkk dyDVj }kjk Lohd`r & dyDVj Lo;a }kjk vuqfpr 'kh?kzrk n'kkZuk vln~Hkkoiw.kZ & fo'ks"k :i ls tc rc ik"kZnksa dk ekeyk bl dk;Zokgh dh fy, lfUuf/k esa j[kk x;k & ;kph ds fo:} izkjaHk dh xbZ izLrko iqu% cqykus dh izfdz;k vikLr & lHkh ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;k¡ vikLr & ;kfpdk LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekeys ds oRrZeku rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa blds lkFk gh lafpr fopkj foe'kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu iks"k.kh; gS rFkk ;kph ds fy, iqu% cqykus dh dk;Zokgh dks vk{ksfir djus ds fy, fuokZpu ;kfpdk izHkkoh mipkj ugha gS rFkk blfy, mijksDr rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa fof/kd fopkj foe'kZ ls ;kfpdk ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ;kph ds fo:} iqu% cqykus dh izfdz;k ds fy, izkjaHk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ,rn~}kjk vikLr dh tkrh gS ifj.kkeLo:i vf/klwpuk fnukad 7-7-2017 tkjh fd, tkus lfgr lHkh ikfj.kfed dk;Zokfg;k¡ tks egRoiw.kZ ugha jgh rFkk ,rn~}kjk vikLr dh tkrh gSA 2005 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 251] 2005 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 379] vkb ,y vkj ¼2007½ ,e ih 1203] 2004 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 303] 2004 ¼1½ ,e ih ,p Vh 312] ¼2004½ 2 ,l lh lh 65] ¼2006½ 11 ,l lh lh 356 rFkk ¼2006½ 6 ,l lh lh 430 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 2042 rFkk ¼2016½ 4 ,l lh lh 429 izHksfnrA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226@227 rFkk 243 ¼;½¼N½ & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 20] 22] 41] rFkk 47 ¼1½¼2½ & mica/kksa ds v/khu ;kfpdk & dh iks"k.kh;rk & ;kph 'kfDr ds euekus iz;ksx dks vk{ksfir dj jgk gS & izR;FkhZx.k }kjk fd;k x;k iz;ksx dk iqu% cqykus dh izfdz;k uewuk gS & ;kph ds ikl dksbZ oSdfYid mipkj ugha tks fd fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk izHkkoh rFkk izHkkoksRiknd gks & ;fn dkuwuh mica/kksa dk Hkax] ewy vf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku rFkk fof/k ds izfrdwy fd;k x;k dk;Z fufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gS & gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS & ;kph izR;FkhZx.k ds Hkkx ij vln~Hkkouk LFkkfir dj pqdk gS tc izLrko yk;k x;k & rc vf/klwpuk tkjh djus dk;Z dksbZ ewY; ugha & ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; & ;kfpdk LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fuokZpu ;k ukeadu 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus ds vk/kkj os vk/kkj gSa tks ml O;fDr dks miyC/k gks ldrs gS tks uohu fuokZpu dks vk{ksfir dj jgk gks rFkk ml izfdz;k dks ugha tks iqu% cqykus dh fLFkfr dks mRiUu djsA ;kph dks iqu% cqykus dh izfdz;k dks fuokZpu vk;ksx dh vf/klwpuk ds i'pkr~ vk{ksfir djus ds fy, volj fey ldrk gS ijarq ;kph dks dkuwu esa mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks vk{ksfir djus ds fy, mipkj ugha gS tks iqu% cqykus dh ifjfLFkfr mRiUu djsA vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk 22 esa izfrikfnr fd, x, vk/kkj iqu% cqykus dh O;Dr 'krksZ ds :i esa vk/kkjks dks 'kkfey ugha djrs gSa ;fn ;kph dks O;Dr 'krksZ ds :i esa vk/kkj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, miyC/k ugha gS] rc fuokZpu ;kfpdk ;kph dks izHkkoh rFkk izHkkoksRiknd mipkj ugha nsrh gS rFkk blfy, ;kph dks mipkj jfgr ugha NksM+k tk ldrk rFkk bl vk/kkj ij Hkh Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; gSA
;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd ;fn dkuwuh mica/kksa dk mYya?ku] ekSfyd vf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku rFkk fof/k fo:} fd;k x;k dk;Z fufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gS Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ;kfpdk esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA fjV vihy dzŒ 61@2017 fu.khZr fnukad 22-2-2017] ¼2016½ 9 ,l lh lh 749] ¼2009½ 14 ,l lh lh 132 rFkk ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh 216 fufnZ"VA
¼3½ uxjikfydk fuokZpu fu;e] 1994 ¼eŒizŒ½ & fuŒ 2¼?k½ & eŒizŒ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 41 rFkk 47¼1½¼2½ & iqu% cqykus dh dk;Zokgh & fuokZpu esa iqu% cqykus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh 'kkfey & ijarq ;kph ds ikl mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks vk{ksfir djus ds fy, dkuwu esa dksbZ mipkj ugha tks iqu% cqykus ls lacaf/kr gksa & fuokZpu vk;ksx rFkk vU; ik"kZn vko';d i{kdkj ugha & D;ksafd muds fo:} dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha pkgk x;k & vk{ksi eq[;r;k izR;FkhZ dzŒ 2 ds dk;Z ds fo:} gS & vf/klwpuk dsoy ikfj.kkfed gS & ;kfpdk dk LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fuokZpu vk;ksx rFkk vU; ik"kZn vko';d i{kdkj ugha gS D;ksafd muds fo:} dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha pkgk x;kA blh izdkj ;kfpdk izLrqr djrs le; fuokZpu vk;ksx ekeys esa ugha Fkk rFkk vk;ksx vU; izR;FkhZx.k dh dk;Zokgh ds fy, [kM+k ugha jg ldkA ;gka vk{ksi eq[; :i ls izR;FkhZ dzΠ2 dh dk;Zokgh ds fo:} FkkA vf/klwpuk fnukafdr 7-7-2017 dsoy ikfj.kkfed gSA
1. With consent, heard finally.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the elected president of the Municipal Council, Sabalgarh District Morena and is being crestfallen by the action of the respondents in as much as, respondent No.2 has referred the matter to the State Government on 28.3.2017 under section 47 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act of 1961”) for recall of the petitioner on the ground that more than 3/4 of the total Councillors have moved a motion of recall against the present petitioner.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner contested the election on the post of president of Municipal Council, Sabalgarh (hereinafter referred as “Council”) and got elected and her election was notified vide notification dated 31.12.2014. Municipal Council consist of 18 Councillors in total. It appears that some of the Councillors of municipalities were engaged in some alleged illegal activities and, therefore, proceedings under section 41 of the Act of 1961 has been initiated. Copy of proceedings under section 41 of the Act of 1961 are placed as (Annexure P-12) with the petition. Since 14.12.2015, matter was pending before the Collector, District Morena for consideration and to take consequential follow up steps under the provisions of section 41 of the Act of 1961.“Proceedings were pending at the time of filing of this petition on 18.4.2017. Now at the time of arguments, it was informed that on 24.7.2017 arguments in the said proceedings have been advanced and case has been kept reserved for orders. The fate of 7 Councillors is to be decided by the said proceedings pending before the Collector under section 41 of the Act of 1961. During pendency of the said proceedings, it appears that 16 Councillors moved a proposal against the present petitioner under section 47 of the Act of 1961 for recalling the petitioner from the post of president of the Municipal Council. The said proposal is placed as (Annexure P-14) with the petition. The said proposal was signed by 16 Councillors (out of total 18 Councillors) on 28.3.2017. The Collector on the same date 28.3.2017 itself considered the proposal so passed and forwarded the case to the State Government on the same date for initiating the proceedings for recall against the present petitioner. The said process of recall as forwarded by the Collector is the bone of contention and has been put to challenge by the petitioner through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the point on the basis of section 47 of the Act of 1961 and submits that as per the sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act of 1961, the Collector has to consider the proposal made by the Councillors objectively and after considering the same, Collector has to refer the matter to the State Government. Here, the Collector has not considered the matter objectively and shown undue haste in initiating the process. During course of event, petitioner submits that respondent No.3 Collector has proceeded with undue haste. His further grievance is that case of 7 Councillors who were signatories in the proposal was pending consideration before the same authority for last 20 months and without deciding the case of those Councillors regarding disqualification, the said process has been initiated which is arbitrary and illegal.“Unless the proceedings under section 41 of the Act of 1961 against 7 Councillors concludes, no steps could have been taken on the basis of inclusion of those 7 Councillors in the proposal because their own election was under doubt. It is further submitted that the Collector has deliberately kept the proceedings under section 41 of the Act of 1961 for almost 2 years against those Councillors and once the minimum bar for initiating a proposal (2 years) under section 47 of the Act of 1961 completed in January, 20
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
