Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 275 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Saira Bano W/o Ali Razat

2010-03-05

DIPAK MISRA, MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 813 of 2010: This is an application for condonation of delay of ten days in preferring the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General alongwith Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned Government Advocate-X for the appellant-State and its functionaries and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. 3. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances and the grounds stated, we are inclined to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed. LP.A. No. 174 of 2010: 4. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for final disposal on merits. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard. 5. In this appeal the State of Bihar and its functionaries have called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7764 of 2009. 6. The facts which are essential to be stated that two writ petitioners who are respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the very order of removal dated 24.6.2009, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on the foundation that series of allegations were made and no opportunity of hearing was given. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the scheme of the Act, namely, the Bihar State Commission for Women Act, 1999 (for brevity, the Act) and placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan and Others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 136, came to hold that in the obtaining factual matrix adherence to the doctrine of natural justice was imperative and as the same had not been done, the order deserved to be quashed and, accordingly, directed for quashment of the same. 7. Initially, there was a debate whether principles of natural justice could be attracted if an order has been passed in terms of Section 4(2)(f) of the Act. It was submitted by Mr. 7. Initially, there was a debate whether principles of natural justice could be attracted if an order has been passed in terms of Section 4(2)(f) of the Act. It was submitted by Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General that the State Government has to form an opinion that if a member abuses the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that persons continuance in office detrimental to the public interest, she could be removed by the State Government from the public office and when the members have signed the advertisement, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and admitted the same in Annexure- 7 to the writ petition, the order of removal cannot be found fault with. At that juncture, Mr. Sanjay Kumar learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents invited our attention to the order of removal which really does not reflect an opinion in the lone sense but has a many contour and characteristic attached to the same. 8. Faced with the aforesaid situation, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General very fairly stated that the order of the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to within a period of ten days and thereafter appropriate action shall be taken within the scheme of the Act against the members. In view of the aforesaid, we only state that the respondents-writ petitioners be taken back as members of the Bihar State Commission for Women without prejudice to the stand put forth by the State Government to take appropriate action as per law. 9. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the letters patent appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.