RAVI YASHWANT versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 02-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 3 S.C.R. 775 
RAVI YASHWANT aHOIR 
v. 
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2012) 
MARCH 2, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and 
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - s.558 - Complaint by the 
Ex-President and the then sitting Municipal Councillor C 
regarding the misconduct of the President-appellant -
Allegations that appellant did not call for a meeting for a 
period of three months as required uls.81(1) and also 
obtained undue financial gain by giving contract to a particular 
contractor at higher rate - Show cause notice served on the 
D 
appellant after conducting preliminary inquiry - Competent 
authority declaring the appellant disqualified for the remaining 
tenure and further disqualifying him for a period of six years 
even as member of the council - Propriety of - ·Held: The 
competent authority did not make any reference to the 
E 
pleadings taken by the appellant either in his reply to show 
cause or during the course of hearing - The order simply 
revealed that the competent authority noticed certain things 
- Not calling the meeting of the General Body of the House 
would at most be a technical misconduct committed 
F 
inadvertently in ignorance of statutory requirements - It was 
nobody's case that the appellant had done it intentionally/ 
purposely in order to avoid some unpleasant resolution/ 
demand of the council - So far as .the other charges were 
concerned, it was a consensus collective decision of the 
Council to accept the tender at higher rate and the appellant G 
could not have been held guilty of the said charges - High 
· Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry 
- Complainant being a political rival, could not have been 
775 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A entertained as a party to the /is - Thus, it was a clear case of 
legal malice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to 
be quashed - The duly elected member/chairman of the 
council could not have been removed in such a casual and 
cavalier manner without giving strict adherence to the 
B safeguards provided under the statute. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Executive order - Municipal 
Council - Removal of elected office bearer - Held: An elected 
official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously 
without following the procedure prescribed by law, in violation 
C of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, by the State 
by adopting a casual approach and resorting to manipulations 
to achieve ulterior purpose - Removal of a duly elected 
Member on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial 
proceeding in nature - Therefore, the principles of natural 
D justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance 
should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision 
providing for the same - In service jurisprudence, for removal, 
termination or reduction in rank, a full fledged inquiry is 
required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 
E 311 of the Constitution - The case of elected office bearer is 
to be understood in an entirely different context as compared 
to the government employees, for the reason, that for the 
removal of the. elected officials, a more stringent procedure 
and standard of proof is required. 
F 
Administrative law: Administrative order - Recording of 
reasons, necessity- Held: Even in administrative matters, the 
reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the 
authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order - Right to 
reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, 
G reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind 
of the authority before the court - Another rationale is that the 
affected party can know why the decision has gone against 
him ~ Spelling out reasons for the order made is one of the 
salutary requirements of natural justice. 
H 
RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 777 
RAIGAD AND ORS. 
Jurisprudence: Legal right - Held: A legal right is an 
A 
averment of entitlement arising out of law - A person who 
suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or 
omission - The complainant has to establish that he has been 
deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained 
injury to any legally protected interest - In case he has no 
B 
legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be 
heard as a party in a tis - A fanciful o

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