1965 (2) TMI 135 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911:

The appeals and the writ petition question whether Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911, is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants were elected to the Municipal Committee, Batala, and their seats were vacated by the Governor of Punjab without notice or hearing, based on a resolution by the outgoing municipal committee. The appellants argued that Section 14(e) is discriminatory and violates Article 14 because it allows the State Government to vacate a member's seat for any reason deemed to affect public interest without providing an opportunity for the member to be heard.

2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 14(e), 16, and 24(3) of the Punjab Municipalities Act. Section 14(e) allows the State Government to vacate a member's seat for reasons affecting public interest without notice or hearing. In contrast, Section 16 requires the State Government to provide reasons for removal and an opportunity for the member to explain before removal. The Court found that Section 14(e) is more drastic and arbitrary compared to Section 16, as it does not provide for a hearing, thus leading to discrimination.

The Court held that the removal contemplated in Section 16 for reasons in clauses (a) to (g) is in the public interest and requires a hearing. However, Section 14(e) also provides for removal in the public interest but without a hearing, making it more drastic. This discrepancy allows the State Government to choose between the two provisions arbitrarily, leading to discrimination and violating Article 14.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court concluded that Section 14(e) is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court struck down the relevant part of Section 14(e) and set aside the notifications vacating the appellants' seats. The direction as to disqualification also failed. The appellants were awarded costs from the State.

Separate Judgment by Mudholkar, J.:

Mudholkar, J., agreed with the conclusion but provided his own reasoning. He emphasized that the power conferred by Section 14(e) is unguided and unconstitutional because it allows the State Government to determine what affects public interest without any guidance. This makes the provision violative of Article 14. Consequently, he also allowed the appeals with costs.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and the writ petition, declaring Section 14(e) unconstitutional for violating Article 14. The appellants' seats were reinstated, and they were awarded costs.