1958 (12) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Removal of petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
2. Authority of the Collector to remove the petitioner.
3. Collection of donations by the petitioner and its purpose.
4. Interpretation of the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, 1949 and related rules.
5. Ownership of donations collected by the petitioner.
6. Bona fides of the petitioner and the Collector's actions.
7. Validity of the order removing the petitioner from office.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a petition under Article 226 challenging the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner collected donations for specific purposes but faced objections regarding the diversion of funds. The Collector, acting on a complaint, ordered the petitioner's removal. The court analyzed the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, highlighting the absence of specific provisions for the removal of a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. The court concluded that the Collector lacked authority to remove the petitioner, as the removal procedure was not followed, rendering the order invalid.

The judgment delves into the ownership of the donations collected by the petitioner, emphasizing that such collections do not immediately vest in the Panchayat unless authorized or entrusted. The court discussed the bona fides of the petitioner, noting his transparency in disclosing the collections. It also evaluated the Collector's actions, acknowledging the intent to safeguard Panchayat interests but deeming the removal order misconceived due to lack of legal basis.

Regarding the expiration of the petitioner's term, the court held that the petition was not infructuous, as the removal order cast serious aspersions on the petitioner's character. Quashing the Collector's order, the court emphasized the importance of preserving the petitioner's reputation and highlighted the order's illegality and unjustifiability. The judgment ultimately allowed the petition, quashed the removal order, and directed the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner, emphasizing the need to rectify an order without jurisdiction even after the petitioner's term had ended.