RAM DIAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 03-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAM DIAL AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
With connected Writ Petition 
February 3, 1965 
[K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Punjab Municipalities Act (Ill of 1911), s. 14(e)-Power l>f. Govern-
ment to remove member in public interest_;_No provision for haring--
Similar power under •· 16(1) subject to hearing-Whether •· 14(e) 
C 
violative of Art. 14-.r. 14 giving power to Government to determine what 
it deemed to be in 'public interest'-Power whether unconstitutionaL 
The appellants, who bad been elected members of the Mnnidpal 
Committee, Batala, challenged the Notification issued under s. 14(e) <A 
the Punjab Municipalities Act (III of 1911) directing their -ai and 
disqualifying them from election for '3 period of one year. It was contend-
ed on their behalf that there were two provisions in the Act, I.e. L 14(e) 
D 
and s. 16(1) clauses (a) to (g) under which a member could be removed 
in the public interest; 
and whereas action could only be taken under 
s. 16(1) after notice and an opponunity for a bearing to the member con-
cerned there was no such requirement in the case of s. 14(e). This sec-
tion was therefore hit by Article 14 and consequently the Notillcaliom 
were invalid. 
HELD: (per Wanchoo, Hidayatullab, Shah and Sikri, JJ.) 
H the 
E 
State Government intended to remove a person for any of the reasons 
given under s. 16(1) cuases (a) to (g)-it could take action under 
s. 14(e) and thus circumvent the provision ins. 16(1) for a bearing. The 
relevant pan of s. 14(e) entirely covered s. 16(1) but was more drastic. 
It was therefore obviously discriminatory and violative of Art 14 of the 
Constitution. [863 C-E] 
Shri Radeshayam Khare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1959] 
S.C.R. 1440, distinguished. 
F 
No assistance could be derived by the respondent State from the~ 
that under the proviso to s. 24(3), the State Government bad power to 
refuse to notify the election of a person elected ou any of the grounds men-
tioned in s. 16( I) and there was no provision in this connection for notice 
and hearing of the person elected. Apan from the question of the con-
stitutionality of this provision, there wa~ no connection between the ~ 
viso to s. 24(3) and the provision contained in s. 14(e). The proviso to 
G 
s. 24(3) was complete in itself and dealt with a situation where the State 
Government refused to notify the election of a person who bad been 
elected. Section 14(e) on the other hand provided for the vacation of the 
seat of a member after he bad taken the oath of office. Therefore the 
constitutionality or otherwise of s. 14 ( e) would depend upon its 'contrast 
with s. 16( l) which also provided for the removal of a member. [864 
A-CJ 
Per Mudholkar, J.-The power conferred by s. 14 upon the State 
H 
Government to require that the seat of any member shall be. vacated "f« 
any reason which it may. deem to affect the public interest" is wli1 ... 
tional. The expression 'public interest' Is of wide import and what would 
• 
RAM DIAL v. STATE (Wanchoo, /.) 
859 
A 
be a matter which is in the public interest would necessarily depend upon 
the time and place and ci::cum tances with reterence to which the consi-
deration of the question arises. But it is not a vague or indefinite ground_ 
There is no guidance in the Act for determining \vhat matters, though not 
in public inte:est may yet be capable of being deemed to affect the public 
interest. [866 E-G; 867 A-CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
300-
B 
302 of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 16, 1962, 
of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 1194 to 1198 of 
1961. 
WITH 
C 
Writ Petition No. 126 of 1964. 
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of 
the fundamental rights. 
N. C. Chatterjee, V. S. Sawhney, S. S. Khanduja, S. K. Man-
chanda, B. R. Kohli and Ganpat Rai, for the appellants (in all 
D 
the appeals) the petitioner (in the Writ Petition). 
/. N. Kaushal, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, 
B. K. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (in all the 
appeal> and the writ petition). 
The Judgment of WANCHOO, HIDAYATULLAH, SHAH and SIKRI 
E JJ. was de1ivered by WANCHOO, J. MUDHOLKAR J. gave an inde-
pendent judgment. 
Wanchoo, J. 
These three appeals are against the judgment 
of the Punjab High Court on certificates granted by that Court. 
The writ petition has been filed by Uma Shankar appellant in this 
F 
Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.