##PAGE1##

1

2025:CGHC:61949

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

(Order Reserved on 22/09/2025)

(Order Delivered on 19/12/2025)

(Order Uploaded on 02/01/2026)

WPC No. 3629 of 2025

Smt. Soni Ajay Banjare W/o Shri Ajay Banjare, Aged About 34 Years R/o

House No. 14, Ward No. 14 Ambedkar Nagar, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh

Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration and

Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

2 - Joint Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department,

Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Collector, Sarangarh Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, Distrct Sarangarh Bilaigarh

Chhattisgarh

5 - Municipal Council Sarangarh, Through The Chief Municipal Officer,

Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG

For Respondent No.5: Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate

Digitally

signed by

ASHUTOSH

ASHUTOSH MISHRA

MISHRA Date:

2026.01.02

15:03:44

+0530

2

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

C A V Order

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated

02/07/2025 issued by the Respondent authorities on the ground that the

said order has been passed without adhering to the mandatory procedure

contemplated under the proviso to Section 41A of the Act C.G.

Municipalities Act, 1961.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following

reliefs:

i. To kindly call for the record of the case.

ii. To kindly set aside the impugned order dated 02/07/2025

(ANNEXURE P/1) for being illegal, arbitrary and contrary

to law.

iii. To kindly direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to

complete her tenure as President of the Municipal Council

Sarangarh without any illegal interruption.

iv. Any other relief/s may be granted to the petitioner, which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the present fact and

circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned

order dated 02.07.2025, passed under Section 41-A of the Chhattisgarh

Municipalities Act, 1961, removing the petitioner from the office of

President of the Municipal Council, Sarangarh, is arbitrary, illegal, and

unsustainable in law. He would next contend that Section 41-A is an

3

extraordinary and drastic provision, meant to be invoked only in grave

and exceptional circumstances. He would next contend that the

impugned order does not disclose any such circumstance on the contrary,

the alleged lapses, even if assumed, are at best procedural or technical

and do not justify the extreme penalty of removal of an elected President.

He would place reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in

Mahesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, and would submit that

removal of an elected municipal head must be founded on strong, cogent

and weighty reasons, and not on trivial or technical lapses. In support of

his contentions he placed reliance upon the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs.

District Collector, Raigad & Oterhs {(2012) 4 SCC 407}; Sharda

Kailash Mittal Vs. State of M.P. {(2010) 2 SCC 319}; Chief

Informatiion Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur {(2011) 15 SCC 1};

and Dayal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others {(2003) 2

SCC 593}. and would submit that the findings of inquiry report cannot

be made applicable in the case of the petitioenr as the report attributes

responsibility to the President for a decision which was taken

collectively by the entire Council and the decision to grant small

adjoining parcels on lease was taken in public interest to enhance

municipal revenue and provide adequate space to shopkeepers. Even a

bona fide misinterpretation of law, if any, could have been corrected

administratively and did not warrant removal.

4. Per contra, l