The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the disqualification provision under Section 15(1) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, and the requirement of giving a hearing to a person before serious action is taken against him.

1. This, is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is the President of the Municipal Committee, Balaghat. He was elected to this office sometime in the year 1946. On 10th March 1952 the Government of Madhya Pradesh passed an order to the effect that the Petitioner had incurred, a disqualification, under Section 15(1), C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, that he was called upon to show cause why he should not be treated as disqualified under this, provision, that the State Government had carefully considered the explanation furnished by the Petitioner and that they found that he had incurred a disqualification under Section 15(1) of the Act. It proceeds to say that in view of the imperative provisions of Section 22(2), Municipalities Act the Petitioner had ceased to be the President of the, Municipal Committee. The Petitioner has, therefore, come up to this Court for relief.

2. The allegation against the Petitioner was that on 4th May 1949, the Vice-President of the Municipal Committee purchased some cloth from the cloth shop belonging to the Petitioner. This cloth was required for preparing liveries of the peons employed by the Municipal Committee.

3. It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that this was done without the knowledge of the Petitioner and that therefore no responsibility could be attached to him for what had been done. Secondly, it (is?) stated that the sale of a commodity across the counter for a cash price is not hit by Section 15(1) of the Act. The relevant provision runs thus:

No person shall be eligible for election, selection or nomination as a member of a committee, if such person- *

(1) has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the committee, while owning such share or interest....

A somewhat similar provision was under consideration in - Tranton v. Astor,1917 33 TLR 383at p. 386 where the learned Judges held that the sale of a commodity for a cash price did not amount to a contract. In our judgment, this decision is sufficient to show that the act alleged against the Petitioner did not amount to a contract so as to incur a disqualification as contemplated by Section 15(1) of the Act.

4. The learned Counsel for the State points out that this very decision was cited by the Petitioner in his explanation to the State Government and suggests that it must have been taken into consideration by the State Government. Therefore according to him, this is not a case for interference. Since the State Government had not given a hearing to the Petitioner before drawing a particular inference, we think that this is pre-eminently a kind of case in which we should interfere. No doubt there is no express provision in the Municipalities Act which requires such a hearing to be given but we think that it would be in Consonance with the principles of natural justice to give a hearing to a person before serious action of this kind is taken against him. It is true that the explanation of the Petitioner was called for by the State Government before it passed the final order. But that is not the same thing as giving an opportunity to him to show cause against the proposed action.

5. Then it is said that the order is administrative and has been given finality by Sub-section (2) of Section 22, Municipalities Act and we can not interfere with it. In our opinion, the mere fact that an order is administrative or that it is given finality by the provisions of the Municipalities Act cannot stand in the way of the Petitioner because the powers conferred on this Court by Article 226 are wide enough to enable interference in proper cases.

6. For these reasons we hold that the Petitioner has not incurred a disqualification under the provisions of the C.P. Municipalities Act and quash the notification No. 808-585-M-XIII dated 10-3-1952- and the order No. 807-585-M-XIII, dated 10-3-1952 passed by the State Government. Costs of this petition shall be borne by the St