# BHAGAT RAM PATANGA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 92
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-04-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1709 of 1969
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidtalingam, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, K. K. Mathew
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhagat-ram-patanga-v-the-state-of-punjab-5745
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911) •· 16(1)(e) and
proviso to s.
16(1)-~Removal of member of Commiltee_;;,procedure to be followed-
·F/a~rant abuse of position, what is.
The r~spondent State served a notice on . the appellant, who was a
member of the Municipal Committee, under the proviso to s. 16( I) of
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 calling upon him to show cause why
he should not be removed from the membership of the committee under
s. 16(1)(e). The notice charged tne appellant with having brought out·
siders into the hall where a meeting was being held for the election of
the President and Vic.e-President of !ID Committee and caused disturbance
tO the meeting that he did not maintain d"corum, and that he did not
obey the rulings of the Chairulan of the meeting. The appellant denied
the allegations and averred that it was the Chairman who was ac~hely
helping the opposite party and that it was he who brought ·in outsiders
to create confusion and disorder.
The Governor of Punjab passed an order under s. 16(1)(e) read
with the proviso, removing the appellant from the membelrship of the
Committee and also disqualifying him for a period of three '!"-"rs under
s. 16(2).
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court and the
trial judge lreld that the allegations against too appellant in the
show
cau0e notice, even if true, would not att\'act s. 16( 1) ( e) of the Act, and,
therefore, quashed the order.
The appellat" Court, held, after examining
the note file produced by the State, that the State had considered the
explanation offered by the appellant and the other materials before it,
and that the State was justified in passing the order,
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( I) Section i 6( 1) of the Act gives power to the State Government to remove any member of tre Committee if he is guiltf of one
or other of the acts mentioned in clauses(a) to (g). To attract clause
(eJ, the State Government must form ap opinion that the appellant had
"l!agrantly abuoed his position as a member of the Committee". The
expre55ion 'flagrantly' means glaringly, notoriously, scandalously; and a
position is said to he abused ~en it is .Pat to a bacl use or for a wr~ng
purpooe depending upon the circumstanqes of the case. When a meetmg
of the membership of the Committee was being held the appellant had
a right. to participate in the proceedings as a member of the Committee.
If he had not been a member of the Committee 11" would not be entitled
to b,e present at the time of the meeting. ·But he had no business to
go outside and bring in hooligans folr too purpo"e of creating confusion
and cha06.
The aopellant thus flagrantly abused bis position as a member of the Committee while participating in the meeting of the Committee. and the.'"fore the State Government was
justitPed in passing
the
O(_der. [!()(JD.HJ
A •
c
I>
E.
~~'-
).
~--
F
G
H '
A
B
c
u
E
F
G
-
H
'.Bl!:AGAI' I.AM P/..T.lNGA 'I'. 'PUN.tAll (Valdicilingam, 1.)
93
(2) TJie High Ciwrt was justified in· holdillg that the State Govtrn,-
ment had considettd the appellant!s repnlll>lltations as al!O the oth« relevant materials before it when it passed the impu_gned order. Sinc.e there
had b?en a proper comideratian of the eliplariation furnished by
the
appellant there was n& violation of the princip!Cli of natul"al justice.
[104C-FJ
( 3) In as much as very severe perKil consequences result by removing
a person from the memberibip l!if a C'.ommittee and appeal . is provided
under the Act it is D<!lt enly desirable but essential that the State GC>Vem,
ment should indicate its reasons folr forming the opinion as required
under s. 16( I ) (e) qf the . Act. It is obligatory on the part of the St.ate
Government to make available" to the member concerned the materials
available before it and on the basis of which u.; show cause notice is
issued, and it is open to the member conc.erhed, to request the State
Government to flirnillh him the materials, so that, ho may sive an effective
answer

## Text

92
BHAGAT RAM PATANGA
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
April 1, 1972
[C. A. VAIDTALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J
Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911) •· 16(1)(e) and
proviso to s.
16(1)-~Removal of member of Commiltee_;;,procedure to be followed-
·F/a~rant abuse of position, what is.
The r~spondent State served a notice on . the appellant, who was a
member of the Municipal Committee, under the proviso to s. 16( I) of
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 calling upon him to show cause why
he should not be removed from the membership of the committee under
s. 16(1)(e). The notice charged tne appellant with having brought out·
siders into the hall where a meeting was being held for the election of
the President and Vic.e-President of !ID Committee and caused disturbance
tO the meeting that he did not maintain d"corum, and that he did not
obey the rulings of the Chairulan of the meeting. The appellant denied
the allegations and averred that it was the Chairman who was ac~hely
helping the opposite party and that it was he who brought ·in outsiders
to create confusion and disorder.
The Governor of Punjab passed an order under s. 16(1)(e) read
with the proviso, removing the appellant from the membelrship of the
Committee and also disqualifying him for a period of three '!"-"rs under
s. 16(2).
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court and the
trial judge lreld that the allegations against too appellant in the
show
cau0e notice, even if true, would not att\'act s. 16( 1) ( e) of the Act, and,
therefore, quashed the order.
The appellat" Court, held, after examining
the note file produced by the State, that the State had considered the
explanation offered by the appellant and the other materials before it,
and that the State was justified in passing the order,
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( I) Section i 6( 1) of the Act gives power to the State Government to remove any member of tre Committee if he is guiltf of one
or other of the acts mentioned in clauses(a) to (g). To attract clause
(eJ, the State Government must form ap opinion that the appellant had
"l!agrantly abuoed his position as a member of the Committee". The
expre55ion 'flagrantly' means glaringly, notoriously, scandalously; and a
position is said to he abused ~en it is .Pat to a bacl use or for a wr~ng
purpooe depending upon the circumstanqes of the case. When a meetmg
of the membership of the Committee was being held the appellant had
a right. to participate in the proceedings as a member of the Committee.
If he had not been a member of the Committee 11" would not be entitled
to b,e present at the time of the meeting. ·But he had no business to
go outside and bring in hooligans folr too purpo"e of creating confusion
and cha06.
The aopellant thus flagrantly abused bis position as a member of the Committee while participating in the meeting of the Committee. and the.'"fore the State Government was
justitPed in passing
the
O(_der. [!()(JD.HJ
A •
c
I>
E.
~~'-
).
~--
F
G
H '
A
B
c
u
E
F
G
-
H
'.Bl!:AGAI' I.AM P/..T.lNGA 'I'. 'PUN.tAll (Valdicilingam, 1.)
93
(2) TJie High Ciwrt was justified in· holdillg that the State Govtrn,-
ment had considettd the appellant!s repnlll>lltations as al!O the oth« relevant materials before it when it passed the impu_gned order. Sinc.e there
had b?en a proper comideratian of the eliplariation furnished by
the
appellant there was n& violation of the princip!Cli of natul"al justice.
[104C-FJ
( 3) In as much as very severe perKil consequences result by removing
a person from the memberibip l!if a C'.ommittee and appeal . is provided
under the Act it is D<!lt enly desirable but essential that the State GC>Vem,
ment should indicate its reasons folr forming the opinion as required
under s. 16( I ) (e) qf the . Act. It is obligatory on the part of the St.ate
Government to make available" to the member concerned the materials
available before it and on the basis of which u.; show cause notice is
issued, and it is open to the member conc.erhed, to request the State
Government to flirnillh him the materials, so that, ho may sive an effective
answer to the averments contained in the show cause notice ;md to the
materials on the basis of which it had been issued. When such an ord:!r
is challenged the State must place before the Court the necessary materials which were available before it and whic'b were taken· in1o consideration fdr forming the opinion to n-move the person concerned from memship of the committee.
In the present case, however,
the
appellant
had not made a grievance either before the High Court or before this
Colirt that the proceedings initiated against him suffered from the infirmity of not having been made available to him the materials that were
before the Government when it passed the order removing him from the
membership of the Committee. [102F·H; J03A-E; 104B-C]
[The averm,nts of the appellant and the Chairman of the meeting
raised a disputed question of fact on which Government was not entitled
to take a view rejecting the plea of the appellant wit!iout having disclooed
to him the allegatiom made in the report. If disputed questions of fact
arise for the consideration of the Government th'ere is no provision as
to how the State has to deal with the matter.
Therefore, suitable provision may be made either in the Act or 1n
the Rules for dealing with such disputed question of fact]. fl04A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1709 of
1969.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and Decree dated
April 10, 1969 of the Punjab & Harya'lla High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 70 of 1964.
J. C. Ta/war and R. C. Kohil, for the appellant.
V. C. Mahajan, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed
against th~ jt<OlμIlent and order dated April 10, 1969 of the Full
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 70 of 1964, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of
1963 filed by the appellant to quash the order of the respondent
:dated September 11, 1962.
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 1 S.C.R.
The circumstances that led to the filing of the Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 1963 may be briefly stated : In the elections held
in October, 1959, the appellant was elected as a Member of the
Municipal Committee, Phagwara.
On June 20, 1960, a meeting
was held for the election of the President and Vice-President of
the Committee.
The meeting was presided over by the SubDivisional Officer (Civil).
According to the _appellant the Presiding Officer conducted the ele-::tions of the President and the VicePresident in an irregular and illegal manner a11d was favouring the
party led by another committee member Bhag Ram.
When the
appellant and another member Om Prakash Agnihotri protested
against this condnct of the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Civil), the
group led by Bhag Ram brought into the Town Hall some unruly
clements from outside who created panic and confusion and manhandled Om Prakash Agnihotri, who was also a candidate for the
presidential office.
It may be stated at this stage that according to the r~spondent,
Om Prakash Agnihotri cr~ated a scene in the meeting and the
appellant who was a staunch supporter of Om Prakash Agnihotri
brought into the Town Hall, a number of outsiders with a view to
cause chaos and confusion in the meeting and that the appellant
did not maintain decorum and did.not care to obey the directions
of the Chairman.
Ultimately, Bhag Ram was elected as the
President.
The appellant and certain other members of the Committee
filed Writ Petition No. 1095 of 1960 in the High Court challenging the election of Bhag Ram as the President.
But the said writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that the disputed facts involved therein could not be gone into by the High Court in proceedings
un~er Art. 226 of the Constitution.
While the writ petition No. 1095 of 1960 was pending in the
High Court; the respondent State on December 5, 1960 served a
notice on the appellant under the proviso to s. 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 l (Punjab Act III of 1911) (hereinafter
tu be referred as the Act) calling upon him to show cause within
21 days why he should not be removed from the membership of
the Committee under s. 16 (1) ( e) of the Act.
The said notice
charged the appellant of having brought outsiders into the Town
Hall on June 20. 1960 to cause disturbance to the meeting that
was being then held and that he did not maintain decorum nor did
he care to obey the rulings of the Chairman. In consequence the
appellant was ~barged of h::.ving flaggmtly abused his position as
a member ot the Committee.
The appellant sent a reply on December 12, 1960 controverting the allegations made in the notice. In tom lie averred: that the.
A.
'
c
D
E
F
c.
H
--
A
B
c
WOAT RAM PATANGA v. PUNJAB (Valtlialingam, I.)
95
Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) who presided over the meeting, was
actively helping the party led by Bhag Ram and it was the latter
who brought in outsiders to create ~nfusion and disord~r. He
denied having brought any outsiders into the hall as alleged in the
notice.
He further stated that the crowd that was- brought into
the hall by Bhag Ram manhandled Om Prakash Agnihotri.
He
further denied the allegation that he did not maintain decorum lind_
that he did not obey the Chair.
On the other hand, he stated that
he was quite obedient to the Chair and that he was not responsible
for the confusion that prevailed at the meeting.
Finally he stated
that even if all _the allegations made in the show cause notice were
true, they will not bring the matter under s. 16 (1 )( e) of the Act
justifying action being taken against him by way of removing him
from the Committee.
On September 11, 1962 the Governor of Punjab passed an
orders. 16(1) (e) read with proviso to s. 16(1) of the Act removing the awellant from the membership of the Municipal Committee, Phagwara. By the same order the appellant was also disD
qualified for a period of three years under sub-s. (2) of s. 16 of
the Act.
The appellant challenged the above order of the State Government before the High Court in Civil Writ No. 22 of 1963. The
main plea that was taken in the writ petition appears to be that
even if all the allegations contained in the show cause notice of
E
December 5, 1960 are true, the appellant cannot be considered to
have "flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Committee" so as to attract the penal consequences under s. 16 (1 )( e)
of the Act.
According to the appellant the allegations made
against him regarding his conduct at the meeting of the Committee
held on June 20, 1960 have no relevancy for invoking the powers
F
conferred on the State Government under s. 16 (1 )( e).
In consequence he alleged that the order dated September 11, J 962
removing him from the membership of the Committee and disqualifying him was null and void and was an abuse of the power
vested in the Government under s. 16 of the _Act.
G
H
The State contested the writ petition on the ground that when
it was found at the Committee meeting that Om Prakash Agnihotri
could not secure support for being elected as the President, the
appellant who was his ardent supporter went out and deliberately
brought some hooligans into the Town Hall and created trouble at
the meeting.
Further the appellant behaved in a very disorderly
manner and did not obey the rulings given by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Civil) who was then presiding over the meeting for the
purp<>se of conducting the election of ,the President and the VicePresident.
As the appellant's conduct was such as to attract ~e
penal provisions of s. 16( 1 )( e) of the Act, the show cause notice
96
[1973J 1 S.C.ll.
was issued under the proviso to the said sectioo for which the
appellant sent a very elaborate reply.
As the explanation Sl!llt
by the appellant was not found to be acceptable, the State Govanment pas.sed the order dated September• 11, 1962 and it was well
within its powers.
The learned Single Judge who dealt with the. writ petition was
of the view that the allegatioru; made against the appellant in the
show cause notice, even if true, will not attract s. 16 ( 1) ( e) of the
Act.
According to the learned Judge it is only when a member
of the Committee has shown favour or indulged in self-aggrandisement by virtue of his position as a member that the said provision
will apply.
On this reasoning, the learned Judge held that the
grounds which led to the making of the order dated September 11,
1962 were neither germane nor relevant for the purpose of attracting s. 16 (I )( t;).
However, deplorable the conduct of the appellant as alleged may have been at the meeting held on June 20,
1960, that by itself will not enable tlie State Government to take
action under s. 16 (I)( e) of the Act.
Ultimately, by his judgment
dated September 18, 1963, the learned Judge quashed the order
of the Government dated September 11, 1962 as being illegal and
void.
The State carried the matter in Letters Patent App.:al No. 70
of 1964.
The said appeal was heard, in ths first instance, by a
Division Bench.
The Division Bench was not inclined to agree
with the views of the learned Single Judge regarding the interpretation placed on s. 16 (1 )( e) of the Act.
The vie1 .· of the Division Bench is that the conduct of the appellant, as alleged in the
show cause notice amount to his having "flagrantly abused his
position as a member of the Committee' so as to attract the penal
provisions of s. 16 ( 1) ( e) of the Act.
Another point appears to have been taken befcre. the Division
Bench, namely, that the . order dated September 11, 1962 suffers
from the vice of not giving reasons for the action taken by the
State Government and on that ground it has to be struck down.
The Division Bench felt that this aspect of the matter is a fairly
important one and as such it required consideration by a larger
bench.
In the end by order dated August 7, 1968 lhe Division
Bench referred the appeal to a Full Bench for consideration of all
aspects.
The appeal came up before the Full Bench of three Judges.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The Full Bench agreed with the view of the Division Bench
regarding the applicability of s. 16 (1 )( e) of the Act and held
H
that the wnduct of the appellant amounted to "flagrantly abusin.g
his posithn as a member of the
Committee'~ Regarding the
question whether the order dated September 11, 1962 has to be
A
BHAGAT RAM PATANGA v. PUNJAB (Vaidialingam, /.)
97
struck down on the ground that it does not give any reasons, the
Full Bench felt that the said question should be considered by a
larger bench of five Judges.
Accordingly by its order dated
February 20, 1969, the Full Bench directed the appeal to be heard
before a Full Bench of five Judges.
B
The Letters Patent app~al in consequence was heard by a
bench of five Judges.
Three questions were posed for consideration:
c
D
£
F
G
H
(a) Whether the decision and order of the State
removing the appellant herein from his membership of the Conunittee under s. 16 (I ) ( e) of the
Act are quasi-judicial;
(b) If they are quasi-judicial, whether the State was
required by law to state reasons for its decision;
and
( c) if the State was bound to give reasons, whether
as a fact reasons have been given for its decision
by the State in the order dated September 11,
1962.
After a fairly elaborate consideration of the matter the learned
Judges held on points Nos. (a) and (b) that the order of the
State removing a Municipal Committee member under s. 16( 1) (e)
of the Act is a quasi-judicial or~e~ \w,d as such the State was bound
to give its reasons fO!"' arriving at a decision.
Regarding point
No. ( c) the learned Judges, after a thorough examination of the
note file produced before them by the State, ultimately held that
the State had considered the explanation offered by the appellant
and after applying its mind to the materials before it was justified
in passing the order removing the appdlant from his membership
of the Committee and also disqualifying him for a period of three
years.
In the result, the Full Bench of five Judges by its order
date,d Apnl 10, 1969 allowed Letters Patent appeal filed by the
State and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
The
result was that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was
dismissed.
Before we. advert to the contentions urged before us by the
learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions
of the Act as weir as the show cause notice issued by the State as
also the final order passed by it.
We will of course refer also to
the substance of the reply sent by the appellant to the show cause
notice.
·
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'73 J 1 ~.C.R.
The relevant provision is s. 16(1) (e), its proviso and sub-s.
(2) of s. 16.
They are as follows :
"16 ( l ) The ,state Government may, by notificanon, remove any member of committee .
•):
•
•
•
( e) if, in the opinion of the State Government he
has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the
committee or has through negligence
or misconduct
been responsible for the Joss, or misapplication of any
money or property of the committee.
"
•
Provided that before the State Government notifies
the removal of a member under this section, the reasons
for his proposed removal shall be communicated to the
member concerned, and he shall be given an opportunity
of tendering an explanation in writing.
( 2) A person removed under this section or whooe
election or appointment has been deemed. to be invalid
under the pr-wisions of sub-section (2) of section 24, or
whose election has been declared void for corrupt pnctices or intimidation under the provisions of section 25 5,
or whose election the State Government or the Deputy
Commissioner has under section 24 refused to notify,
shall be disqualified for election for a period not e-.:ceed·
ing five years :
Provided that a person whose· elecrion or appointment has been deemed to be invalid under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24, shall not be disqualified for election or appointment for a period
exceeding two years from the date of disqualification."
No rules framed under the Act, having any bearing on the
manner in which the Government has to deal with the matter have
been brought to our notice.
The show cause notice issued by the State on December 5,
1960 was as follows :
"It has been brought to the notice of the Government that on the 20th June, 1960 the Sub Divisional
. Officer (Civil) Phagwara, convened a meeting of the
newly elected members of the Municipal Committee,
Phagwara, after the election of the Committee, held on
17-10-1959 in order to administer oath of allegiance
A
~.
c
D
E
F
G
H -
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHAGAT ,UM PATANGA v. PUN.JAB (Vaidilllingam, J.)
9~
and to conduct .the election of the President of the Committee to enable the new Committee to take over the
charge, you also attended that meeting at the time of
election of the office of the President.
You were supporter of the group headed by Shri Om Parkash Pcgnihotri, member of the Committee whose candidature was
proposed for this office.
During the course of the meeting when Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri became unruly
and began to tear his clothes, beat his chest and create a
row you managed to bring some outsiders in the Town
Hall to cause disturbance at the meeting. More over you
did not maintain decorum or care to obey the chair. By
your aforooaid action you have flagrantly abused your
position as a member of the Committee within the meaning of section 16(1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act
1911. I am directed to call upon you to show cause
under proviso to section 16 (I) ibid why you should not
be removed from the membership of the Committee
unders. 16{1)(e) ibid.
You should tender your explanation to the Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala with an
advance copy to Government together with copy
(copies) of documents, if any, so as to reach there within
a period of twenty days from the date of despatch of
this letter.
In case no explanation is submitted by you
within the stipulated period, it will be considered that
you have no explanation to offer and government may
proceed ah~ad to notify your removal."
The appellant sent a reply on December 16, 1960.
No copy
of the reply sent by the appellant has been placed in the record
availll.ble before us.
But the nature of the reply can be gathered
in the summary given by thei High Court.
In his reply the appellant had denied the allegations made against him. in the show
cause notice.
On the other hand, he averred that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) who was presiding over the meeting was
taking sides with Bhag Ram and it was the latter who brought'
hooligans in the Town Hall and created chaos and confusion. He
also denied the allegation that he did not obey the rulings given
by the Chair and that he behaved in a disorderly manner.
He
further averred that the hooligans who were brought into the Town
Hall by Bhag Ram manhandled Om Farkash Agnihotri and created confusion at the meeting.
He further averred that even assuming that a11 the allegations riiade against him in the show cause
notice are true, s. 16 (1 ) ( e) of the Act was not attracted as he has
not "flagrantly abused his position as a memoor of the Committee"
The order of the State dated September 11,
1962 was
~
follows:
100
[1!1'73} 1 S.CR.
"Whereas the GoVemor of Punjab after giving an
opportunity to Shri Bhagat Ram Patarrga, member,
Municipal Committee Phagwara of tendering an expla"
nation under the proviso to section 16 ·of the Punjab
Municipal Act 1911 is satisfied that the said Shri Bha-
. gat Ram Patanga has flagrantly abused his position as a
member of the aforesaid committee, now, therefore, in.
exercise of the powers vested in him under clause ( e) of
sub-section l of section 16 ibid, the Governor of Punjab
i•. pleased to remove the said Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga
from the membership of the Municipal Committee
Phagwara from the date of Publication of this notification in the official Gazette and is further pleased to disqualify the said Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga for a
period of three years from the aforementioned date
under Sub-section ( 2) of Section 16 ibid."
It will be seen that s. 16 (l ) of the Act gives power to the
State Government to remove any member of a committee if he is
guilty of one or other of the acts mentioned in els. (a) to (g). In
particular we are concerned with cl. ( e).
To attract that provision the $tate Government must form an opinion that the e.ppellant has "flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Committee".
We are not concerned with the other grounds mentioned in cl. ( e) for which alsp the removal of a member can be
ordered.
But before notifying the removal of a member from the
Committee, there is an obligation on the State Government by
virtue of the provisC" to section 16 (l ) to communicate to the
member concerned the reasons for his proposed removal.
There
is also a further obligation to give'the concerned member an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.
Sub-seciion
(2)
gives power to the authority concerned when removing a member
to disqualify him for .election for a period not exceeding five years.
In view of the proviso to 5. 160) the show cause notice was
issued on DecemOOI' 5, 1960.
The grounds for the action proposed to be taken were also indicated therein as ceming within
s. 16 ( 1 )(e) of the Act.
The appellant was given an,opportunity
-0f tendering his explanation in writing. As mentioned earlier, he
also availed himself of the said opportunity.
But the point to be
noted is that in order to attract s. 16 (I) ( e) of the Act, the appellant. should be fou.nd to have flagramly abused his position as a
member of the committee.
In the case before us the State Government has come to a finding that the conduct attributed to the
appellant at the meeting held on June 20,
1960 amounted to
having "flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Comnrittee" and i'I was on this basis that he was removed from
the
committe.
This conclusion arrived at by the Government, though
not approved by the learned Single Judge, has been accepted as
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E'
F
G
H
.BHAGAT RAM PATANGA v .. PUNJAB (Vaidiallngam, /.)
IOI
correct by the Division Bench in its order dated August 7, 19/iS,
in the Letters Patent appeal.
The view of the Division Bench
has been approved by the Full Bench of three Judges as also of
five Judges.
On behalf .of the appellant Mr. J. C. Talwar, loomed counsel,
raised .two contentions : ( 1 ) The allegations made against the
appellant in the show cause notice dated December 5, 1960, even
if true, are·not such as to attracts. 16(1)(e) on the ground
that the appellant has "flagrantly abused his position as a
member of the committee"; and (2) The larger berich of five
Judges having held that the proceedings initiated by the State
against the appellant are quasi-judicial arid that the State was
bQund to give reasons, erred in holding that the files produced
before it disclosed that there has been a consideration of the
appellant's explanation by the State.
This view of the High Court
is erroneous.
Mr. V. C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the State, has not
challenged the finding of the High Court in the Letters Patent
appeal regarding the proceedings initiated against the appellant
being of a quasi-judicial nature and the State being bound to ~ve
· reasons for the order.
But the counsel urged that the appellant
has no where raised the conteintion that there has been no consideration by the State Government of the explanation offered by
him before the order dated September 11, 1962 was passed.
He
also pointed out that there has been district compliance of the
provisions of the st11tute by the State Government before passing
the order dated September 11, 1962.
The counsel further urged
that the conduct of the appellant as disclosed by the events that
took place at the meeting of June 20, 1960 constitute a flagrant
abuse by the appd]lant of his po$ition as a member of the
CODJmittee so as to attract s. 16 ( 1) ( e) of the Act.
We are not inclined ·to accept the contention of Mr. Talwat
that the allegations made against the appellant regarding his conduct at the meeting of June 20, 1960 do not amount to his having
flagrantly abused his position as a member of the committee. Mr.
Talwar's contention appears to be that it is only when a person
abuses his position as a member of the committee and shows
favour to others or gains undue advantage to him that he can be
considered to have flagrantly abused his position as a member of
the committee.
No doubt, such a contention has found favour
at the hands of the learned Single Judge.
But, in our opinion,
the Division Bench was right when it differed from this view of
the learned Single Judge. Tut; nature of the allegations . ma<!e
against the appellrnt is self-eVJdent from averments C?ntamed.Jn
the show cause notice, extracted above.
The allegations clearly
show that the appellant had brought in outside elements in order
l02
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) l S.C R.
rto create confusion and chaw at the meeting.
The expression
"flagrantly" means glaringly, notoriously, scanclalously.
A position i$ said to be abused when it is put to a bad use or for wrong
,Purpose.
No doubt it may vary with the circumstances. When
a meeting of the members of the committee was being held, the
11ppellant had no doubt a right to participate in the proceedings as
a member of the committee.
But he had no business, as a member participating in the meeting of the committee, to go outside
and bring in hooligans for the purpose of cf(lating co,nflis\on and
chaos.
This behaviour of the appellant was to say the least
~candulous. If he· had not been a member of the committee, he
would not be entitled to be present inside the Town Hall at the
time of !he meeting. The appellant did flagrantly abuse his position as a member of the Committee while participating in the meeting of the committee, when he brought in rowdies for creating
disturbance so that the Committee meeting may not b~ held peace~
fully and properly.
Therefore, the State Government was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that action has to be
.taken against the appellant under s. 16 ( 1) ( e) of the Act.
Therefore the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
will have to be rejected.
Coming to the second contention, it has to be noted that the
appellant does not appear to have raised this contention before the
learned Single Judge, nor even in his writ petition. It was only
when the State. went up in appeal, that the appellant raised the
contention that the proceedings initiated against him are quasijudicial and as such the State was bound to give reasons in .its
order.
To this limited extent the Full Bench has agreed with the
appellant.
The appellant raised in consequence the further contention that the order dated September 11, 1962 has to .be struck
<l9wn inasmuch as it does not give any reasons.
So far as this
last aspect is concerned, we have already referred to the fact that
the Full Bench of five Judges went through the file produced
before it by the State and has come to the conclusion that there is
·a clear indication that the representations of the ·appellant were
taken into account and considered by the Government before the
.order dated September 11, 1962 was passed.
At this stage we
may say that inasmuch as very severe penal consequences l'e6Ult
by removing a person from the membership of a.
com~ittee, to
which he has been duly elected and as no appeal 1s provtded under
the statute against an order so removing him, it is not only desir-
. ab!€' but also essential that the State Government should indicate
'its reasons for forming the opinion as required under s. 16 ( 1 )( e)
of the Act. When such an order is challenged, the State must
place before ~he Court the necessary materials which were available before it aild which were taken into consideration for forming
an opinion to remove the person concerned as a member of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
BHAGAT RAM PATANGA v. PUNJAB (Vaidia/ingam, J.)
103
committee.
In this case, it is not possible for us to know whether
the State referred in its counter affidavit in the writ petition to the
various matters contained in the relevant file, as the appellant has
not placed before us either a copy of his writ petition or the counter
affidavit of the State.
Therefore, it is not possible for us to know
the actual averments made by the appellant and the answers given
by the. State in the writ petition.
The facts given by us, in the
earlier part of the judgment regarding the plea of the appellant
and the defence raised hy the State were all gathered by us from
the judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the Letters
Patent Bench.
When once the Letters Patent Bench has held that the order
passed by the State Government is of a quasi-judicial nature, it is
obligatory on the part of the State Government to make available
to the member concerned the materials available before it and on
the ba~is of which the show cause notice is issued.
Even if those
materials are not referred to in the show cause notice in any great
detail, it is open to the member concerned to request the State
Government to furnish him the materials on which the, show cause
notice has been issued so that tie may give an effective answer not
only to the averments contained in the show cause notice but also
to the materials, on the basis of which the show cause notice has
been issued.
For instancE-, in the case before us, the High Court
has referred to the information contained irt"the relevant file before
it that there was the· reporyof the Sub-Divisional Officer, who presided over the meeting held on Ju~ 20, 1960, giving his version
of the part played by the appellari'f: In his answer to the show
cause notice the appellant had denied that he ever brought any
outsider into the Town Hall and that, on the. other hand, it was
Bhag Ram, who had brought outsiders in the Town Hall and
created the confusion.
This raises a dis1mted question of fact on
which the Government- is not entitled to take view rejecting the
plea of the appellant without having disclosed to him the actual
allegations made• in tile report.
But it is unn·ecessary for us to
pursue this aspect further because the appellant has not made a
grievance either before the High Court or before us that the proceedings initiated. against him suffer from the infirmity of not
having made available to him the materials that were before the
Government when it passed the order removing him from the
membership of the committee.
As pointed out earlier, the only
other contention in this regard raised by him and that too at the
stage of Letters Patent Appeal was that the order of the Government does not show that his representations have been taken into .
account by the State. . Again there is also the possibility that the
term of the office of the appellant, who was elected to the committee, as early as 1959 may have expired long ago. If disputed
questions of fact arise for consideration by the Government, there
104
SUPl.EME COURT REPORTS
(1973) 1 S.C.R.
is no provision. so far as we could see, in the Act as to how the
Stale is to deal with the matter.
Further no Rules aisO have been
brought to our notice laying down the procedure to be adopted
by th(, State under such circwnstances.
These are all matters of
considerable impOrtance which should attract the attention of the
Stale Oovemment, so that suitable provisions may be made either
in the Act or in the Rules made by virtue of the rule making
power.
In the particular circumstances ·of this case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the file produced by the Government docs disc!Ole that the Slate has considered the appellant's
representations as also the other ·relevant materials before it when
pasling the order dated September 11, 1962.
The various rqiorts that were before the State <3ovemment,
notes made by the concerned department on the basis of the aid
reports and on the expla!lllt:ion furnished by the appellant as well
A
8
c
as the jottings made from time to time by the Minister concerned,
have all been very elaborately dealt with by the Full Bench of five
D
Judges.
We do not think it necessary to cover the ground over
again.
The learned Judges after a consideration of all those
materials contained in the file, produced before them, have recorded a finding that the State Government was justifie'l in rejecting
the explanation offered by the appellant and passing the order
under attack accepting the reports of the officers concerned.
We
are in entire agreement with the views expres&ed in this regard by
E
the learned Judges in the Letters Patent .Appeal.
From what is stated above, it is clear that there has been· a
prop« consideration of the explanation furnished by the appdlant
and that there has been no violation oC the principles of natural
justice.
The second contention of the learned ~l for .the
appellant also fails.
In the result, the judgment and order c:A. the High Court in the
Letters Patent Appeal are confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to oosts.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
F
G
,...