The removal of an elected official requires strict adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, ensuring due process in disqualification cases.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2017 (Annexure P / 1) passed by the State Government affirming the order dated 10.1.2017 (Annexure P / 4) by which the petitioner was removed from the post of Councillor and further disqualified him from participating in the election on the post of Councillor.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioner was served with a notice that being an elected Councillor of Nagar Panchayat, Khairagarh, he appeared as an Advocate (Counsel) in Appeal Case No.6206B / 121/2014-15 (Smt. Jyoti Bhondekar Vs. Ku. Bhishm Kumari Bhondekar and others) before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Khairagarh, thereby he has suffered disqualification under S.41(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1961'). The petitioner filed his reply opposing the show - cause notice and stated that he has acted strictly in accordance with law and has not suffered any such disqualification.
2.2 The Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon by order dated 10.1.2017 (Annexure P / 4) directed his removal and also held him disqualified to become a Councillor of Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat for next term of five years.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 10.1.2017 he preferred an appeal before the State Government under S.41(4) of the Act of 1961. By the impugned order, the State Government has dismissed his appeal finding no merit. Questioning the same, this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner herein.

3. Mr.C.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that order passed by the Additional Collector as affirmed by the State Government is wholly perverse and contrary to the provisions contained in S.41 (2) of the Act of 1961. He would further submit that in revenue appeal case filed before the Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Khairagarh the Municipal Council, Khairagarh was not a party respondent, but the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Khairagarh was a party respondent, therefore, S.41 (2) of the Act of 1961 would not be attracted and therefore, order passed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon as affirmed by the State Government is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents / State, would submit that proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Khairagarh was against the interest of the Municipal Council, therefore, he has rightly been removed from the post of Councillor under S.41(2) of the Act of 1961 and the State Government has rightly affirmed the impugned order.

5. Mr.B.D.Guru, learned counsel appearing for the intervener, would also support the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. Submissions made by the parties would necessitate me to notice S.41 (2) and (3) of the Act of 1961 which states as under:
“41 (2) The Collector may at any time, remove any elected Councillor if he, being a legal practitioner, acts, or appears on behalf of any other person against the Council in any legal proceedings or against the State Government in any such proceeding relating to any matter in which the Council is or has been concerned, or acts or appears on behalf of any person in any criminal proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the Council against such person.
(3) The Collector may, while ordering the removal under S.40 or this