Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, Ahanthem Bimol Singh, JJ.
State Manipur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Thongam Shyamo Singh & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 46 of 2020, Ref: W.P. (C) No. 1049 of 2018
Decided On : 16-09-2021
Misconduct - Disqualification of Councilor - Manipur Municipalities Act 1994, Section 29, 58, 59
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the disqualification of a councilor from Thoubal Municipal Council based on allegations of misconduct and involvement in contract works without government approval. The court considered the validity and legality of the disqualification order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disqualification order was based on allegations of misconduct, but the report did not establish any direct or indirect involvement in contract works. The court emphasized that the establishment of misconduct is a condition for removal under Section 29(1) but not under Section 29(2)(d). The court also highlighted the liability for loss, waste, or misapplication of funds under Section 58.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity and legality of the disqualification order, the establishment of misconduct, and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Manipur Municipalities Act 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disqualification order was issued without any basis or material and in an arbitrary manner. It emphasized that the order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons subsequently given. The court also highlighted the distinction between Section 29(1) and Section 29(2)(d) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned disqualification order, emphasizing that the State Government must proceed with the provisions of Section 58 if loss, waste, or misappropriation is a consequence of any illegal act, omission, neglect, or misconduct.
JUDGMENT
A. Bimol Singh, J.:--
[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, Ld. Addl. AG appearing for the appellant, Mr. Th. Mahira, Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. G.A. Romendro Sharma, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3, 5, 6 & 9.
[2] This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1049 of 2018. The only issue to be considered in the present writ appeal is the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, for disqualifying the writ petitioner/Respondent No. 1 herein from being a Councilor of Ward No. 5 of Thoubal Municipal Council.
[3] The relevant facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the Respondent No. 1 was elected as Councilor of Ward No. 5 of Thoubal Municipal Council and thereafter he was elected as the Chairperson of the Thoubal Municipal Council – vide notification dated 09.02.2016.
[4] While the Respondent No. 1 was functioning as the Chairperson of the Thoubal Municipal Council (herein referred to as the Council for short) a requisition dated 16.11.2017 was submitted by 7 (seven) Councilors of the council to the Executive Officer of the council requesting for convening a special meeting to consider the charges of misconduct alleged against the Respondent No. 1 and to move the Government for removal of the Respondent No. 1 from being a member of the council under Section 29 of the Manipur Municipalities Act 1994 on the charges of misconduct alleged against the Respondent No. 1 in the said requisition and for disqualifying the Respondent No. 1 under Section 59 of the Manipur Municipalities Act 1994 (herein referred to as the Act for short) on the basis of allegations for his involvement in contract works of the council without Government approval.
The said requisition was forwarded to the Commissioner (MAHUD), Government of Manipur by the Executive Officer of the Council under a letter dated 01.12.2017.
[5] On receipt of the said requisition, the Under Secretary (MAHUD) wrote a letter dated 27.12.2017 to the Executive Officer of the Council requesting to submit a detail report with supporting documents on the claim and allegations to the Government for a thorough examination.
[6] In response to the aforesaid letter of the Government, the Executive Officer of the council submitted a detailed parawise report with supporting documents in connection with the charges and allegations made against the Respondent No. 1 under his letter dated 08.01.2018 stating that the charges and allegations made against the Respondent No. 1 were without any basis.
[7] During this period, another Councilor of Thoubal Municipal Council filed a writ petition registered as W.P (C) No. 181 of 2017 in this High Court, praying for issuing appropriate directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, to exercise his power under Section 202 of the Act and also to dispose of the representation dated 20.02.2017 submitted by the aforesaid councilor. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 18.07.2017 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal to consider and dispose of the said representation dated 20.02.2017 within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of passing of the order by this Court and to issue an appropriate order in respect thereof, - vide order dated 18.07.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 181 of 2017.
[8] In purported compliance of the order of this Court dated 18.07.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 181 of 2017, a five members District Level Enquiry Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal was constituted to enquire into the allegations made against the Respondent No. 1. The said enquiry committee enquired into the following 3 (three) allegations made against the Respondent No. 1:-
(i) the direct/indirect involvement of Shri Thongam Shyamo Singh in the contract work of entry toll tax pursuant to tender notice No. 55/TBL/TVL/MUC/ETT/20-15 dated
AI
The judgment established the importance of recording reasons, adherence to statutory timelines, and the need for application of mind in quasi-judicial decisions, emphasizing procedural fairness and n....
The availability of alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when there is a violation of natural justice or when the decision-making process is without jurisdiction.
The removal of an elected official requires strict adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, ensuring due process in disqualification cases.
Disqualification of a Panchayati Raj member requires adherence to prescribed inquiry procedures; failing which, actions are illegal and contravene principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conducting a full-fledged inquiry into the charges against an elected representative of the people and the emphasis on the princ....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the State Election Commissioner must consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials and relegate parties to a competent....
The court clarified that disqualification from a municipal committee requires a direct contract interest, not just property ownership or rent receipt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an alternate and efficacious remedy available in the form of a reference under Section 13(4) read with Section 405 of the Act renders a challe....
Removal of elected officials under quasi-judicial provisions necessitates adherence to principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and inquiry.
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
