Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Removal of Elected Officials Requires Full-Fledged Inquiry with Reasoned Findings: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Deshmukh criticizes SDO’s inquiry for reproducing allegations without substantive discussion or independent findings.

The Bombay High Court has overturned the disqualification of Sou. Pratibha Sudhir Shinde, President of Wai Municipal Council, by the State Government. The decision, delivered by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, underscores the necessity for a comprehensive inquiry and strict compliance with statutory procedures under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat, and Industrial Township Act, 1965.

The case centers around allegations of bribery involving Sou. Pratibha Sudhir Shinde and her husband, accused of accepting a bribe of ₹14,000 to clear a contractor’s bill. A complaint led to an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) investigation, resulting in the registration of criminal charges. Subsequently, the State Government disqualified Shinde from her position as President and Councilor of Wai Municipal Council, barring her from contesting elections for six years. Shinde challenged the disqualification, contending procedural lapses and lack of substantial evidence.

Justice Deshmukh noted significant procedural deficiencies in the disqualification process. The inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) rather than the Collector, as required by Section 55-1(2) of the Act. Furthermore, the absence of a requisition signed by half of the total number of Councilors, essential for initiating such proceedings, was highlighted. The court emphasized that “removal of a directly elected President mandates strict adherence to statutory provisions to ensure fairness and transparency.”

The court stressed the importance of a thorough and reasoned inquiry. Justice Deshmukh remarked, “The proceedings for removal of a duly elected member are quasi-judicial in nature, necessitating a full-fledged inquiry backed by reasoned findings.” The inquiry report by the SDO was criticized for merely reproducing allegations without substantive discussion or independent findings of misconduct or disgraceful conduct.

Addressing the allegations of bribery, the court found that the complainant, Amit Jaygude, was not the actual contractor, raising doubts about the credibility of the complaint. The contract was awarded to Sachin Gurav, who did not file any complaint. The court observed that the SDO’s report failed to provide a clear explanation for the acceptance of ₹14,000 and relied heavily on unverified phone recordings.

The judgment referenced significant precedents, including Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector Raigad and Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing the necessity for a stringent standard of proof and detailed reasoning in cases involving the removal of elected officials. Justice Deshmukh stated, “The provisions of Section 55-A do not grant absolute power to the State Government to remove a directly elected President without a motion initiated by the required number of Councilors and a subsequent inquiry by the Collector.”

Justice Deshmukh remarked, “The impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction and lacks the foundational basis of a full-fledged inquiry, rendering it unsustainable.”

The Bombay High Court’s decision reinstates Sou. Pratibha Sudhir Shinde as President of Wai Municipal Council, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity in the disqualification of elected officials. This judgment reinforces the legal framework ensuring fair and transparent proceedings and is expected to influence future cases involving similar statutory provisions.

 

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024

Sou. Pratibha Sudhir Shinde vs. Government of Maharashtra & Ors.

Similar News