Removal of elected officials under quasi-judicial provisions necessitates adherence to principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and inquiry.

1. This petition questions the legality of the action taken by the State Government under S.23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 , removing the petitioner from the office of the president of the Anand Municipality.

2. The question has arisen under the following circumstances :

3. The petitioner was elected as the president of the Anand Municipality on 22nd March 1961, the term of office being for four years. The petitioner assumed office and worked as the president of the Municipality till 9th January 1963 when he received a show cause notice from the Deputy Secretary to the Government calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the president.

4. The petitioner thereupon filed a written reply dated 14th January 1963 whereby he denied ail the charges levelled against him in the show cause notice. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order dated 14th March 1963 removing him from the office of the president for misconduct and neglect of duties. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner.

5. The main grounds on which the order is sought to be quashed are :
(1) the petitioner has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard.
(2) No proper inquiry has been made before passing the impugned order and the order is based on information gathered at the back of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to rebut the materials used against him.
(3) No evidence has been led in support of the charge and no opportunity to contradict the evidence or cross - examine the witnesses was given to the petitioner.
(4) The authority passing the order has not applied his mind to the facts of the case.
(5) No specific findings on any of the charges have been given in tile order.
(6) The allegations contained in the notice are vagus and general in character.
(7) The order has been passed mala fide.
Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended that the action taken by the respondent under S.23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 , was not an administrative but a quasi - judicial act which required an inquiry and a hearing before the final order could be passed against the petitioner under that section. Mr. Patel also contended that the principles of natural Justice and fair play were not observed before the passing of the impugned order.

6. To appreciate the contention regarding the nature of the action taken under S.23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, it will be necessary to refer to the order passed against the petitioner and to the provisions of S.23(7) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 . The order dated 14th March 1963 has been filed as Annexure - Ex. C to the petition and is as under.
Health and Industries Department
Sachivalaya, Ahmedabad 15,
Dated 14th March 1963.
ORDER
No. DTM 1762 / L whereas it was brought to the notice of the Government of Gujarat that Shri Ravjibhai Kalidas Patel, President, Anand Municipality, Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'the President') has, in his capacity as President,
1. Never allowed the Vice - president to carry out routine work as per R.77.
2. Moved Government and consulting surveyor to Government for several changes in the Town Planning Scheme without the consent of the Municipality in its general meeting.
3. Withdrawn the authorisation on his own authority although the councillors Shri F.J. Patel and Shri V.P. Gandhi were authorised by the Municipality in its general meeting to take steps for expeditious execution of the drainage scheme.
4. Moved Government to change the site of the slaughter house without the consent of the Municipality in its general meeting though the previous site was approved by the Municipality.
5. On his own authority imposed and recovered fine and confiscated the goods of the dealers having small cabins and hand carts running their business on municipal land, and had also not complied with the Collector's directions to refund the fine.
6. Maliciously corrected resolution No. 155 of