STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BHAJAN SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 27-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
, 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
~ 
v. 
BHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Municipalities : 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Sections 16( 1 )( e) and 24(2)-Appellants 
and pal1icularly the Principal Secretary deprived Respondent No. 1 from c 
performing his duties as the President of the Municipal Council after his 
election-Writ petition was filed against the appellants as no notification was 
issued after his election-NotificaJion was issued removing his name from the 
membership of the council as well as its Presidents/zip on grounds ofmiscon-
duct-High Coul1 struck down the impugned notification imposing Rs. 10,000 
as costs-On appeal Held, law relating to elections is creaJion of sta/ute, 
D 
which has to be strictly interpreted and effected-There is no unbridled power 
to notify or not to notify the election as it would be contrary to the concept 
of democracy, rule of law and mandate of the Act-Even if Respondent No. 1 
incurred some disqualifications, he should have been intimated and there can 
" 
be no justification for not doing so-Principal Secretary persistantly deprived 
E 
him from performing his functions as an elected representative for 3 years and 
""'l 
this loss cannot be compensated under any law-Principal Secretary person-
ally held liable to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000. 
Section 16 and 24 (2) proviso (/)-Power of Stale Government to 
remove ftvm membership of council on grounds of misconduct-Held, there 
F 
are other disqualifications provided under the Act and other laws which can 
be relied on for taking action-Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994--
Section II. 
Words and Phrases-Meaning of "flagrant abuse of power" in the 
G 
context of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Sections 16(/)(e) and 20. 
_.., 
Appellants and in particular the Principal Secretary of the State 
Government did not allow Respondent No. 1 who was an elected repre-
sentative to the Municipal Council to perform his functions in order to 
further the interest of the ruling party. Later on, he was also elected as 
H 
149 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the President Of the Council. However, no notification under Section 24 of 
' 
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was issued. A writ petition was filed 
,. 
against the said inaction of the State Government. In the meanwhile, a 
show cause notice proposing to remove his name from membership of the 
Nagar Panchayat/Council was issued under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. 
B 
His name was removed from the membership of the Nagar Panchayat/ 
Council as well as the Presidentship of the Municipal Council by a notifi. 
cation issued by the Principal Secretary. Respondent No. 1 filed another 
writ petition against the said notification and the High Court allowed the 
same imposing cost of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
c 
Appellants contended that respondent No. 1 had been improperly 
elected as the President of the Municipal Council; that he had abused his 
position as a member of the Municipal Council, that the action taken by 
the Principal Secretary was legal and valid; and that the State Govern-
ment had a discretion to notify or not to notify the election of the Presi-
D 
dent of the Municipal Council under Section 24(2) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal the Court 
HELD : 1. Despite the election of respondent No. 1 as President a 
notification in terms of Section 24(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was 
not issued. The Principal Secretary had no unbridled power or option to 
y 
E 
notify or not to notify the election of the President in the Official Gazette as 
such will not only be contrary to the concept of democracy and the rule of 
t. 
law bnt in fact flagrant valuation of the mandate of the Act. A duty is cast 
upon the Government to notify in the Official Gazette every election ol' 
President of Municipality as is evident from the words "shall notify in the 
F 
Official Gazette" used in the sub-section. The.State Government may refuse 
to notify the election of a President, or any person who has incurred a 
disqualification under the Act or nuder any other law for the time being in 
force, subsequent to his election as Member of the Municipality pro,ided 
the State Government gives an opportunity of being heard to the concerned 
G 
person. The State Government has failed to notify the election of the Presi-
dent without assigning any reason, much less "giving an opportunity'' to 
respondent N

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