The court upheld the validity of Section 19-B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, determining it complies with constitutional requirements and does not confer arbitrary power on the state.

1. The main question involved in these writ petitions revolves around validity of S.19 - B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act). Among others, it empowers the State Government to remove, a Mayor of a municipal corporation.

2. THE FACTS
Bilaspur Development Authority (the BDA) acquired some land of one Shri Manohar Lal Raj (Shri Lal). In this regard, an agreement dated 21-7-1987 (the Agreement) was executed between them. It is said that:
• Under the agreement some money as well as some developed land was to be given to him; and
• After merger of the BDA with the Bilaspur Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) on 9-9-2002, it is to be done by the Corporation.

3. There was difference of opinion between the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation (the Commissioner) and the elected Mayor of the Corporation, Smt. Vani Rao (the Petitioner), as to how the Agreement should be implemented:
• The Commissioner was of the view that before resolving anything in themayor - in - council of the Corporation (the MIC), the opinion of the State Government be taken and only some amount should be given;
• Whereas, the petitioner wanted the matter to be taken up in the MIC.

4. The Commissioner wrote a letter on 14-9-2010 to the State Government seeking directions and guidelines. However, the petitioner directed the matter to be placed before the MIC on the same date.

5. On 14-9-2010, the MIC is said to have unanimously passed resolution number - 11 (the Resolution) by which 20,735 square feet land was resolved to be given to Shri Lal. We are using the words, 'said to have been passed', as there is dispute between the parties whether, it was passed or not. A copy of the Resolution is Appendix - 1 to this judgment.

6.WP 6286 of 2011 - The First - WP
The State Government issued a notice dated 30-6-2011 (the first Notice) under S.19B of the Act requiring the petitioner to show cause why action, under S.19B of the Act, be not taken for the irregularities mentioned in the notice.

7. In the first Notice, three irregularities are mentioned. Out of these three, the first two have some concern with the Commissioner and the third one is related to wrongly constituting the departments.

8. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition (C) - 6286 of 2011 (the first - WP) challenging the same.

9. WP 282 of 2012 - The Second - WP
During the pendency of the first - WP, another notice dated 31-12-2011 (the second - Notice) was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause why action be not taken under S.19B of the Act for using unparliamentarily language on 2-12-2011; doing work (specified in the notice) against the rules of the Government; and getting the work done on her whims by threatening the officers and employees of the Corporation.

10. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition (C) 282 of 2012 (the second - WP). In this writ petition validity of S.19 - B of the Act is also challenged.

11. In the second - WP, an interim order was granted on 21-2-2012 that the proceedings may go on, but no final decision shall be taken till the next date of listing. This interim order was continued from time to time.

12. WP 886 of 2013 - The Third W - P
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, the State Government by order dated 3-6-2013,
• Stayed the operation of the resolution dated 14-9-2010;
• Asked the Commissioner to obtain the opinion of the Corporation regarding the Resolution;
• Issued another notice dated 4-6-2013 (the third - Notice) under S.19 - B of the Act asking the Petitioner to show cause for getting the Resolution fraudulently recorded as passed when, it was not passed.

13. The Petitioner has filed