Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 799 (MP)

Muzaffar Ali v. State of M. P.

1997-12-03

R.S.GARG

body1997
JUDGMENT By order dated 21.4.97 (Annexure P/1), the State Government has passed an order under section 41(1) (a) of M.P. Municipalities Act, removing the petitioner from the office of the Councillor of Nagar Panchayat, Bijuri, District Shahdol, on the allegations that the petitioner did not belong to OBC, but, however, obtained a false certificate and contested the election on the strength of the said certificate. The said order has been challenged before this Court on various grounds. It appears that after some complaint was made to the State Government/Collector about the petitioner's certificate of his being a member of OBC, the Collector through S.D.O. obtained a report and thereafter forwarded the same with his recommendations to the State Government. The SDO and the Collector in their report/recommendations made a specific statement that the petitioner did not belong to OBC as he was an 'Iraki' and not 'Manihar'. On 4.11.96 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner who on his part submitted the reply on 23.11.96. It does not appear from Annexure P/1 that after 23.11.96 any enquiry was made by the State Government. The order dated 21.4.97 was passed after receiving the reply, but without holding any enquiry into the allegations. As observed above, Order Annexure P/1 has been challenged on manifold grounds, but the petition can be disposed of on the short ground of non-grant of proper opportunity. Annexure P/2, the show cause notice does nowhere show that the State wanted to rely upon the enquiry report of SDO or the recommendations made by the Collector. Annexure P/2 also does not show that any slightest indication was ever made about the enquiry made by the SDO or the recommendations of the Collector. P/2 does nowhere show nor does inform the petitioner that the State wanted to rely upon the report/recommendations. P/2 does not show that the petitioner was ever informed that such report may be taken into consideration. It does not appear from the return and the records that at the time of the enquiry, held by the SDO, the petitioner was ever asked to submit his case. It also does not appear from the records that the Collector ever heard the petitioner before making his recommendations. Though Shri Gupta submits that Annexure P/1 satisfies the requirement of principles of natural justice, but this Court is constrained to say that the State Govt. It also does not appear from the records that the Collector ever heard the petitioner before making his recommendations. Though Shri Gupta submits that Annexure P/1 satisfies the requirement of principles of natural justice, but this Court is constrained to say that the State Govt. has not observed the smallest requirement of the principles of natural justice. Annexure P/1 in paragraph 1 refers to the show cause notice, its reply and the documents filed by the petitioner. Paragraph 2 refers to the report of the SDO, copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner. Paragraph 3 refers to the recommendations of the Collector and clearly states that the Collector had recommended for removal of the petitioner; copy of this report as observed above, has not been supplied to the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of the order refers to some order passed by this Court on 19.8.96. In paragraph 6 of the order, we only read that "in view of the above facts, explanation submitted by Shri Muzaffar Ali does not appear to be reasonable." In the opinion of this Court, this cryptic order cannot be termed to be a reasoned order. A show cause notice is not issued simply to seek reply, but it is issued to the other side asking him to show cause as to why an action be not taken. In para 5 State has again relied upon the recommendations made by the Collector, without hearing the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, if the State wanted to rely upon the report of the SDO and the recommendations made by the Collector, then such documents were required to be supplied to the petitioner enabling him to challenge the correctness of the said reports/recommendations. It was the duty of the State Government to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit his case before the State. The manner in which impugned order has been passed clearly shows that the State Government/Competent Authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and has passed the final order in a mechanical manner. The order deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The manner in which impugned order has been passed clearly shows that the State Government/Competent Authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and has passed the final order in a mechanical manner. The order deserves to and is accordingly quashed. It is, however, made clear that if the State/Competent Authority is still of the opinion that the petitioner's removal from the office is a must, then they must provide him the material on which the State wants to place reliance and are also required to give him proper opportunity to prove his defence. The petition is allowed. No costs.