Neha Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - Sections 41-A, 70, 43-A, 37 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Removal of elected President of Municipal Council - Power under Section 41-A is extraordinary and can be exercised only in rarest of rare cases - Removal must be in public interest or interest of Council - Charges must be of grave nature, not minor irregularities - Elected office-bearer cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry and proper application of mind - Opportunity of hearing must be meaningful - Court under Article 226 can review for non-application of mind and proportionality. (Paras 20, 21, 28-31)

(B) Removal - Requirement of gravity - Single act of omission or error of judgment not sufficient unless serious consequences - Reliance on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sharda Kailash Mittal (2010) 2 SCC 319, Ajay Kumar Shukla 2019 (1) MPLJ 426, Rajeev Sharma 2003 (4) MPLJ 28. (Paras 21-25, 29-30)

(C) President-in-Council - Non-formation due to non-cooperation of councillors cannot be solely attributed to President - Petitioner had filed writ and representation - Charge not sustainable. (Paras 18, 20, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, duly elected President of a Municipal Council, faced persistent obstruction from councillors and the local MLA. A no-confidence motion was withdrawn due to an amendment extending the minimum period. The petitioner filed a writ for non-cooperation. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Section 41-A was issued levelling four charges: irregular appointments of muster roll employees, non-formation of President-in-Council, violation of procurement process, and discrepancies in purchase of air conditioners. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and was heard, but the State Government removed her from the post. The petitioner challenged the order.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the charges were not of such grave nature as to warrant removal. Charge No.1 (appointments) was made with PIC approval and not solely attributable to petitioner. Charge No.2 (non-formation of PIC) was due to non-cooperation of councillors, and petitioner had sought action. Charge No.4 (AC purchase) was through GEM portal, no misappropriation. The authorities did not properly consider the reply and acted without application of mind. The subsequent recall election result showed petitioner received substantial support. The impugned order was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the charges against the petitioner were of sufficient gravity to justify removal under Section 41-A? (ii) Whether the authorities applied their mind and properly considered the petitioner's reply? (iii) Whether the removal was in public interest or interest of the Council?

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of an elected President under Section 41-A is a drastic step that can be taken only in exceptional circumstances where the misconduct is of such magnitude that continued presence is undesirable in public interest or interest of the Council. Minor irregularities or acts done with approval of the President-in-Council cannot form the basis for removal. The authorities must conduct a proper inquiry, consider the reply, and record reasons showing application of mind. The court can interfere under Article 226 if the order is perverse or shows non-application of mind.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2025 quashed. No order as to costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Removal of elected municipal President under Section 41-A of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 — Challenge by writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Removal of elected President challenged as arbitrary and disproportionate; State defended on basis of proved charges and opportunity. (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 11 , 15 , 17 )

3. Petition allowed; impugned removal order quashed. (Para 33 , 34 )

4. What is the scope of the power of removal under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961?

It is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases, only for grave misconduct and in public interest, not for minor irregularities. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 )

5. What is the standard of inquiry required before removal of an elected office-bearer?

A full-fledged inquiry meeting principles of natural justice is required; mere opportunity to reply and hearing may not suffice if the reply is not properly appreciated. (Para 20 , 21 , 31 )

6. Can an elected President be held solely responsible for actions taken with the approval of the President-in-Council?

No. If decisions were collectively taken by the PIC, the President cannot be singularly punished for such acts. (Para 18 , 30 )

7. What is the court's role in judicial review of a removal order under Section 41-A?

The court can examine whether the removal is based on cogent and compelling reasons and whether the material justifies removal in public interest. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )

ORDER :

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from the post of President.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the duly elected President of the Municipal Council, Deori, District Sagar. She has consistently been committed to work for the welfare of the public and the betterment of the Municipal Council, Deori. Certain corporators of the municipality have persistently created obstructions in the functioning of the municipality with the intention of preventing her from discharging her duties. Such obstruction has been carried out in connivance with the respondent No.5, the sitting MLA of the Deori, Legislative Assembly. The Councillors went to draw a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The Councillors have previously made attempt to harass the petitioner and obstruct the functioning of the Municipal Council. In pursuance to the no confidence motion moved by the Councillors an order dated 22.08.2024 was issued by the Additional Collector, District Sagar to all the Ward Councillors in accordance with Section 43-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the meeting was proposed to be held on 04.09.2024 for voting on the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and in the meanwhile, an ordinance dated 27.08.2024 was issued by the Hon’ble Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh whereby Section 43-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961 was amended, by which the minimum period for moving a motion of no confidence against the President after assuming office was extended from two years to three years. In pursuance to the amendment, the proposal sent for no confidence motion was recalled by the Additional Collector vide order dated 23.08.2024. One Sarita Jain who was Councillor of Ward No.11 approached this Court challenging the validity of the order dated 23.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.26077/2024 and vide order dated 09.09.2024, the petition was dismissed in the light of the order passed in Writ Petition No.25382/2024 decided on 06.09.2024 in which the issue has already been resolved. It was held by the Court that the ordinance dated 27.08.2024 has retrospective effect. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work on the post of President of the Council. The respondent No.4 issued notices for the special sessions of President-in-Council on 11.03.2024, 15.03.2024, 13.09.2024 and 21.11.2024 but the Councillors continuously refrained from accepting the notice of President-in-Council and tried to hinder the work of the Municipality. The letter dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner points out that five out of seven Councillors have refused to accept the position in PIC. This goes to show that they unnecessarily want to harass the petitioner. The Councillors refused to cooperate in the functioning of the Council as well as the General Body. Being aggrieved by the misconduct and non cooperation of the Council, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.3 pointing out misconduct and malicious act of the Councillors and made a special request to remove the Councillors under Section 41 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. However, no action was taken by the respondent No.3 which resulted in non-functioning of the Council. It is argued that in Rule 13 of the M.P. Municipalities (Procedure for Conduct of Business) Rules, 2005, it is specifically provided that any Councilor who disobeys the instructions of the Presiding Officer and causes hindrance in the conduct of business is liable for action under Section 41 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.1092/2025 (Neha Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Others) wherein notices were issued on 06.02.2025 and on 12.03.2025, the respondents sought time to file reply in the matter. However, no reply

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Neha Jain - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 34618 of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2026

Removal of an elected municipal president under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act requires grave misconduct and proper application of mind; minor irregularities or acts approved by council do not justify such drastic action.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of the power of removal under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961?

5. What is the standard of inquiry required before removal of an elected office-bearer?

6. Can an elected President be held solely responsible for actions taken with the approval of the President-in-Council?

7. What is the court's role in judicial review of a removal order under Section 41-A?

2026 Supreme(MP) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVISHAL MISHRA, J.Neha Jain - PetitionerVersusThe State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - RespondentsWrit Petition No. 34618 of 2025Decided On : 20-01-2026

Removal of an elected municipal president under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act requires grave misconduct and proper application of mind; minor irregularities or acts approved by council do not justify such drastic action.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of the power of removal under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961?

5. What is the standard of inquiry required before removal of an elected office-bearer?

6. Can an elected President be held solely responsible for actions taken with the approval of the President-in-Council?

7. What is the court's role in judicial review of a removal order under Section 41-A?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Neha Jain - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 34618 of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2026