BHAGAT RAM PATANGA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 07-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

92 
BHAGAT RAM PATANGA 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
April 1, 1972 
[C. A. VAIDTALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND 
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J 
Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911) •· 16(1)(e) and 
proviso to s. 
16(1)-~Removal of member of Commiltee_;;,procedure to be followed-
·F/a~rant abuse of position, what is. 
The r~spondent State served a notice on . the appellant, who was a 
member of the Municipal Committee, under the proviso to s. 16( I) of 
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 calling upon him to show cause why 
he should not be removed from the membership of the committee under 
s. 16(1)(e). The notice charged tne appellant with having brought out· 
siders into the hall where a meeting was being held for the election of 
the President and Vic.e-President of !ID Committee and caused disturbance 
tO the meeting that he did not maintain d"corum, and that he did not 
obey the rulings of the Chairulan of the meeting. The appellant denied 
the allegations and averred that it was the Chairman who was ac~hely 
helping the opposite party and that it was he who brought ·in outsiders 
to create confusion and disorder. 
The Governor of Punjab passed an order under s. 16(1)(e) read 
with the proviso, removing the appellant from the membelrship of the 
Committee and also disqualifying him for a period of three '!"-"rs under 
s. 16(2). 
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court and the 
trial judge lreld that the allegations against too appellant in the 
show 
cau0e notice, even if true, would not att\'act s. 16( 1) ( e) of the Act, and, 
therefore, quashed the order. 
The appellat" Court, held, after examining 
the note file produced by the State, that the State had considered the 
explanation offered by the appellant and the other materials before it, 
and that the State was justified in passing the order, 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( I) Section i 6( 1) of the Act gives power to the State Go-
vernment to remove any member of tre Committee if he is guiltf of one 
or other of the acts mentioned in clauses(a) to (g). To attract clause 
(eJ, the State Government must form ap opinion that the appellant had 
"l!agrantly abuoed his position as a member of the Committee". The 
expre55ion 'flagrantly' means glaringly, notoriously, scandalously; and a 
position is said to he abused ~en it is .Pat to a bacl use or for a wr~ng 
purpooe depending upon the circumstanqes of the case. When a meetmg 
of the membership of the Committee was being held the appellant had 
a right. to participate in the proceedings as a member of the Committee. 
If he had not been a member of the Committee 11" would not be entitled 
to b,e present at the time of the meeting. ·But he had no business to 
go outside and bring in hooligans folr too purpo"e of creating confusion 
and cha06. 
The aopellant thus flagrantly abused bis position as a mem-
ber of the Committee while participating in the meeting of the Commit-
tee. and the.'"fore the State Government was 
justitPed in passing 
the 
O(_der. [!()(JD.HJ 
A •
c 
I> 
E. 
~~'-
).
~--
F 
G 
H ' 
A 
B 
c 
u 
E 
F 
G 
-
H 
'.Bl!:AGAI' I.AM P/..T.lNGA 'I'. 'PUN.tAll (Valdicilingam, 1.) 
93 
(2) TJie High Ciwrt was justified in· holdillg that the State Govtrn,-
ment had considettd the appellant!s repnlll>lltations as al!O the oth« rele-
vant materials before it when it passed the impu_gned order. Sinc.e there 
had b?en a proper comideratian of the eliplariation furnished by 
the 
appellant there was n& violation of the princip!Cli of natul"al justice. 
[104C-FJ 
( 3) In as much as very severe perKil consequences result by removing 
a person from the memberibip l!if a C'.ommittee and appeal . is provided 
under the Act it is D<!lt enly desirable but essential that the State GC>Vem, 
ment should indicate its reasons folr forming the opinion as required 
under s. 16( I ) (e) qf the . Act. It is obligatory on the part of the St.ate 
Government to make available" to the member concerned the materials 
available before it and on the basis of which u.; show cause notice is 
issued, and it is open to the member conc.erhed, to request the State 
Government to flirnillh him the materials, so that, ho may sive an effective 
answer to the averments contained in the show cause notice ;md to the 
materials on the basis of which it had been issued. When such an ord:!r 
is challenged the State must place before the Court the necessary mate-
rials which were available before it and whic'b were taken· in1o considera-
t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.