Madan S/O Babanrao Zade vs Hon'Ble Minister Of State And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 717 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.D. Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 while exercising powers under Section 55-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, on the ground that the order impugned is the interim order and the final declaration of disqualification under Section 55-B of the Act would not have been given at the interlocutory stage by the State Government before passing the final order, and therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable, Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even in the order, which is interim in nature, no reasons as such are given for holding that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 55-B of the Act and in absence of reasons, impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that even the period for which the petitioner was disqualified by the impugned order dated 24-6-1998 i.e. 6 years is also over in April, 2004.

3. The learned AGP for the State though not disputed that the order impugned is interim in nature, however, submitted that the final order could not be passed because of the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition. The learned AGP further contended that even otherwise the period for which the petitioner was disqualified has come to an end in April, 2004 and therefore, the effect of the impugned order does not survive after April, 2004.

4. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the order dated 24-4-1998 is an interim order whereby the State has declared that the petitioner has incurred disqualification on account of being guilty of misconduct in discharge of his official duty for a period of six years from the date of the order. The perusal of the impugned order shows that though the State Government has narrated the background and the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, however, no specific reasons as such are given for holding that the petitioner in fact has incurred disqualification as contemplated under Section 55-B of the Act and for want of reasons, in our view, order cannot be sustained in law.

5. We want to express that the rights of the elective office as far as possible should not be taken away by passing interim order by the State while exercising power under Section 55-B of the Act, unless there are compelling circumstances which requires immediate declaration that the councillor concerned has incurred disqualification under Section 55-B of the Act. In the normal circumstances, such declaration should be given only after considering relevant facts and circumstances and by passing final reasoned order. In the instant case, there are no compelling circumstances which necessitated the State to give such declaration under Section 55-B by passing interim order. Similarly, the State has not given any reason for such declaration in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order, apart from being interim in nature, is also, without any reason, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

6. Even otherwise, by the impugned order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the State Government, the petitioner was disqualified under Section 55-B of the Act for a period of six years and the said period was over in the month of April, 2004. From this point of view also, the force of the order, in our view, had come to an end in the month of April, 2004 itself.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the State Government is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above term. No order as to cost.