Jawala Prakash vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another

Kilam, J.—This is a writ petition by Mr. Jawala Prakash, a practising counsel at Hiranagar, who was some time back the Chairman of the

Town Area Committee Hiranagar. He seeks a writ of certiorari or in the alternative a writ of mandamus with the prayer that the opposite party (the

Government, may be restrained from removing him from the Chairmanship of the said Town Area Committee.

In their objection the opposite party has made out that the Government felt dissatisfied with the working of the Town Area Committee Hiranagar

and pursuant thereof a charge sheet was framed against its Chairman, Shri Jawala Prakash, who submitted an explanation, which was considered

by the proper authority and which found it necessary to order removal of Jawala Prakash from the Chairmanship of the said Town Area

Committee.

On behalf of Mr. Jawala Prakash, Mr. R.N Bhalgotra who seems to have put in good labour in preparing his case, argued his case with ability

and clarity, but with all this, as will be just seen, I am afraid I cannot agree with the submission made by him. Mr. Bhagotra has vehemently pressed

that the decision arrived at by the Government in removing Mr. Jawala Prakash from Chairmanship was wrong and not warranted by the facts of

the case. He further argued that no inquiry was held by the authorities according to law, and as such the Government, in his submission, could not

assume jurisdiction in the matter and order removal of Mr. Jawala Prakash, It has been pointed out by me before-and I may once again put down

here-that this Court will assume jurisdiction in matters like the one before me only if an authority which is bound to follow the provisions of a statute

acts in contravention of those provisions. But if the Government or such authority acts according to the procedure provided by the said statute,

holds an inquiry as provided by law, and then arrives at some conclusions, this Court will not and cannot interfere on the ground that these

conclusions are not warrants by facts.

Now in the present case a charge sheet was framed and an inquiry was made by the Director Load Bodies and an explanation was taken from

the applicant. The Government after all this, held that Mr. Jawala Prakash should not be allowed continue as Chairman. On facts this Court may

form a different opinion from the one which is expressed by the said authority. But this has to be borne in mind that this Court is not sitting as Court

of Appeal to revise the orders passed by the Government. Nor is this Court going to order any inquiry as to whether certain facts alleged on beha

(sic) of the Government or the petitioner are right (sic) wrong. This Court will only see if the petition has or has not received equal protection of

law.

Under these circumstances, I find no force this writ application which is rejected.