Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by ten elected members of the Katol Municipal Council, including the President, ex-President, and councillors, challenging an order of the Minister of State for Urban Development, Maharashtra, dated 20 February 2016. The Minister had disqualified the petitioners under Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, on grounds of misconduct and disgraceful conduct in relation to the allotment of minor repair works to a contractor, Shri Bambal. A complaint by opposition councillors led to an inquiry under Section 311 of the Act, conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who submitted a report on 31 December 2013. The petitioners alleged procedural deficiencies, including failure to record their statements and consider relevant documents. A show cause notice was issued on 2 August 2014, framing four charges: (i) division of works in violation of Standing Order No. 36 and Section 72 of the Act; (ii) non-compliance with contractor qualification requirements under Clause 27 of Standing Order No. 36; (iii) illegal passing of a resolution on 7 May 2013 by not accepting the lowest tender of another contractor; and (iv) recovery of excess payment. The petitioners defended themselves by arguing that Standing Order No. 36 lacked statutory force, Section 72 was inapplicable as no rules had been framed thereunder, the works were for different periods and involved different contractors, no financial loss was caused, and there was no evidence of dishonesty or mala fide intention. They also contended that the Minister's order was passed after an eight-month delay, failed to consider their preliminary submissions, reply affidavits, and arguments, and was cryptic and non-speaking, betraying non-application of mind. The High Court heard arguments from senior counsel Sunil Manohar for the petitioners, who stressed the absence of statutory violation, the lack of mala fides, and the procedural flaws in the Minister's quasi-judicial order. The respondents and interveners argued in support of the disqualification. The final decision of the Court is not included in the supplied excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister's order disqualifying petitioners under Sections 55B and 42 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 was legal and correct.
Law Points
- Minister's quasi-judicial order must reflect application of mind
- violation of standing orders not sufficient for disqualification unless backed by statutory force
- disqualification requires evidence of dishonesty or mala fide
- Minister cannot rely on findings without independent reasoning
- need for proper notice and opportunity
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (05) 56
Writ Petition No. 1442 of 2016
Sunil Manohar, Rahul V. Deshmukh, Rohit Joshi, A.S. Kilor, A.J. Gilda, M.P. Khajanchi
Rahul s/o Virendra Deshmukh, Sarla w/o Vishram Uikey, Smt. Asha Shankarrao Raut, Smt. Vandana Harishchandra Rajurkar, Smt. Shobhabai Ashok Jawanjal, Smt. Nalini Kailash Larokar, Suresh Champatrao Parbat, Smt. Geeta Mahesh Chandak, Rajesh Sukhdeorao Dehankar, Girish Dhanrajji Paliwal
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Urban Development Department, The Hon'ble Minister of State Urban Development Department, The Collector Civil Lines Nagpur, Smt. Laxmi Ishwarchand Joshi President Municipal Council Katol
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of disqualification passed by the Minister under Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Minister's order dated 20.2.2016 disqualifying the petitioners and consequential relief.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended the Minister's order was illegal, arbitrary, passed without application of mind, and based on misinterpretation of law.
Previous Decisions
Minister's order dated 20.2.2016 disqualifying petitioners.
Issues
Whether the Minister's order disqualifying petitioners was legal and valid
Whether the Minister failed to apply mind and consider the petitioners' defence
Whether the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, 1965 were violated
Whether the Standing Order No. 36 had force of law and could form basis of disqualification
Whether the petitioners acted with dishonesty or mala fide intent
Whether the order was passed after inordinate delay and without proper reasoning
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued Standing Order No. 36 lacked statutory force and was merely administrative, thus could not ground disqualification.
Petitioners contended Section 72 of the Act had been substituted in 2012, leaving financial limits to be prescribed by rules which had not been framed, so no violation occurred.
Petitioners submitted Clause 27 of Standing Order No. 36 applied only to agents appointed under Section 49A(ii) and not to rate contractors like Shri Bambal.
Petitioners pointed out no evidence existed that work was surrendered to Shri Surendra Lohi and that there was no financial loss as full payment was withheld for 26 out of 29 works.
Petitioners claimed the order was passed after eight months from closure of the case and was cryptic, evidencing non-application of mind to their defences.
Petitioners highlighted that the complainant councillors had previously appointed an unregistered contractor during their tenure, indicating selective targeting.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister, thereby disqualifying the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
It is the grievance of the petitioners that in the inquiry that was conducted, statements of petitioners were not recorded and the relevant documents were not properly considered.
According to the petitioners, all these points of defence raised in the preliminary submissions as well as affidavitinreply and the affidavits filed by them were not considered by the respondent no. 2 in any manner.
The impugned order has been passed belatedly, almost after a period of eight months from the date of closure of the case and is cryptic, from which nonapplication of mind on the part of respondent no. 2 in passing it is very much visible.
Procedural History
Opposition councillors filed complaint before the Minister alleging illegality in allotment of works. Minister directed Collector to make inquiry under Section 311 of the Act. Collector ordered Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire, who submitted report on 31.12.2013. Show cause notice issued to petitioners on 02.08.2014 framing charges. Minister passed disqualification order on 20.02.2016. Petitioners filed writ petition challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: 55B, 42, 311, 72, 49A(ii)
