Neha Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from the post of President.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the duly elected President of the Municipal Council, Deori, District Sagar. She has consistently been committed to work for the welfare of the public and the betterment of the Municipal Council, Deori. Certain corporators of the municipality have persistently created obstructions in the functioning of the municipality with the intention of preventing her from discharging her duties. Such obstruction has been carried out in connivance with the respondent No.5, the sitting MLA of the Deori, Legislative Assembly. The Councillors went to draw a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The Councillors have previously made attempt to harass the petitioner and obstruct the functioning of the Municipal Council. In pursuance to the no confidence motion moved by the Councillors an order dated 22.08.2024 was issued by the Additional Collector, District Sagar to all the Ward Councillors in accordance with Section 43-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the meeting was proposed to be held on 04.09.2024 for voting on the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and in the meanwhile, an ordinance dated 27.08.2024 was issued by the Hon’ble Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh whereby Section 43-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961 was amended, by which the minimum period for moving a motion of no confidence against the President after assuming office was extended from two years to three years. In pursuance to the amendment, the proposal sent for no confidence motion was recalled by the Additional Collector vide order dated 23.08.2024. One Sarita Jain who was Councillor of Ward No.11 approached this Court challenging the validity of the order dated 23.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.26077/2024 and vide order dated 09.09.2024, the petition was dismissed in the light of the order passed in Writ Petition No.25382/2024 decided on 06.09.2024 in which the issue has already been resolved. It was held by the Court that the ordinance dated 27.08.2024 has retrospective effect. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work on the post of President of the Council. The respondent No.4 issued notices for the special sessions of President-in-Council on 11.03.2024, 15.03.2024, 13.09.2024 and 21.11.2024 but the Councillors continuously refrained from accepting the notice of President-in-Council and tried to hinder the work of the Municipality. The letter dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner points out that five out of seven Councillors have refused to accept the position in PIC. This goes to show that they unnecessarily want to harass the petitioner. The Councillors refused to cooperate in the functioning of the Council as well as the General Body. Being aggrieved by the misconduct and non cooperation of the Council, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.3 pointing out misconduct and malicious act of the Councillors and made a special request to remove the Councillors under Section 41 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. However, no action was taken by the respondent No.3 which resulted in non-functioning of the Council. It is argued that in Rule 13 of the M.P. Municipalities (Procedure for Conduct of Business) Rules, 2005, it is specifically provided that any Councilor who disobeys the instructions of the Presiding Officer and causes hindrance in the conduct of business is liable for action under Section 41 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.1092/2025 (Neha Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Others) wherein notices were issued on 06.02.2025 and on 12.03.2025, the respondents sought time to file reply in the matter. However, no reply was filed till date. On one hand, the Councillors have refused to participate in the President-In-Council meetings or to cooperate in passing any municipal bills and on the other hand in collusion with the respondent No.5 had made representations to the In-charge CMO on 07.05.2025 seeking organization of special session of the Council for the purpose of renaming Deori constituency to “Devpuri”. On 02.05.2025, by which Shri Manish Parte who was transferred as CMO of council, the respondent No.6 continued to exercise administrative authority without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and convened a special session in absence of the petitioner and passed a resolution for changing the name of Deori to Devpuri vide resolution dated 14.05.2025. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 15.05.2025 issued under Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961 by the respondent No.2 for removal from the post. It is argued that powers under Section 41-A of the Act of 1961 are of extraordinary and exceptional nature and can be exercised sparingly in the rarest of rare circumstances. By show cause notice four charges were levelled against the petitioner. First, regarding role played by the petitioner in irregular appointments and unjustified payments made to the muster roll employees. Second, non-formation of the President-in-Council which has adversely affected the financial and administrative functioning of the Municipal Council which amounts to violation of Section 70 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Third, in collusion with the Chief Municipal Officer has violated the prescribed procurement process of the Municipal Council for purchase of Articles and fourth, regarding discrepancies in procurement of Air Conditioners to be installed in the Sahitya Bhawan as well in the Municipality Office causing discrepancy of Rs.2,06,550/-.

The petitioner submitted a detailed and comprehensive reply to the show cause notice denying all the allegations and furnished proper explanation to demonstrate that none of the charges stand proved. Every charge levied against the petitioner has been dealt with by the petitioner and clarified in the reply. It is further alleged that looking to the reply submitted by the petitioner no case is made out for invoking drastic provisions of Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Although Shri Parte was transferred to the Municipal Council Deori as Chief Municipal Officer and joined services on 13.05.2025 but he went on leave and did not return to the office for a long time and during this period the in-charge that is respondent No.5 continued to discharge her duties. The petitioner has filed a representation dated 10.06.2025 before the District Collector seeking refrainment of respondent No.5 from illegal discharge of duties. The petitioner made a complaint to the Joint Director, Urban Administration Department, Sagar Division and to the Commissioner, Urban Administration Department requesting for placing a regular Chief Municipal Officer in the Municipal Council, Deori. The petitioner was summoned for physical hearing before the State Government on 06.08.2025. The petitioner not only appeared but answered to each and every allegations levied against her and submitted a detailed written reply to the charges but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner in a pre-determined and with bias mindset, the respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the order dated 28.05.2025 directing for removal of the petitioner from the post of elected President which is the order impugned in the writ petition.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed an application being I.A.No.16928/2025 and brought on record the purchase registration regarding Air Conditioners through GEM portal and submits that the Air Conditioners were rightly purchased by the petitioner through a Government dealers.

It is argued that the provisions of Section 41-A can be invoked on formation of an opinion that continuance of such office bearer is not desirable in public interest or in the interest of the Council or he or she is incapable of performing his duties or is working against the provisions of the Act or any Rules made thereunder. The misconduct should be of such magnitude as to make their continued presence undesirable in the interest of the council or in public interest. The action in terms of Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act is to be taken in rarest of the rare cases and should not be taken as a matter of routine. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Rajiv Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 28 wherein it is held that removal of President can be only in public interest and irregularities alleged should be of such serious nature that continuance of such person as President is undesirable. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can look into the matter to find out whether conditions and circumstances extraneous to the main purpose of the statute are achieved by exercise of its powers under Section 41-A or not. The impugned order is unsustainable and the respondents have failed to take into consideration the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, the resolution of the President-In-Council and the statutory provisions governing the functioning of the Municipal Council. The petitioner cannot be held personally liable for the acts that statutorily fall within the domain of the PIC and the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO). The constitution of PIC and the procurement of articles/materials were done strictly in accordance with the resolution of PIC and as per the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and Rules framed thereunder. The article that is the Air Conditioners were purchased from the GEM portal that is the Government portal after taking approval from the PIC. The charge of misappropriation of funds were found to be not proved against the petitioner. The respondents failed to consider the aspect that persistent obstruction and functioning of the council was created by the Councillors for which the petitioner has also filed an application seeking action against the Councillors but of no consequence, therefore, this petition was filed before this Court, wherein notices were issued and no reply is filed by the respondents. Alternative remedies were available to the erring councillors/officers under Section 41 and 43 of the Act. Removal of the President should be the last resort. The action of the authorities is in violation of the proportionality. It is argued that this Court on 03.09.2025 has considered the arguments and passed a detailed order granting interim relief to the petitioner. Against the said order, a writ appeals were filed by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 had disposed off the writ appeal with certain directions.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgments in the cases of Preeti Swapnil Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2020) MP 364, Sharda Kailash Mittal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 319, Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 and Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2019 (1) MPLJ 426. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

On notice being issued reply has been filed by the respondents/State and a separate reply has been filed by the respondents/intervenor – Sarita Jain. Counsel appearing for the State in the reply has denied the petitioner’s averments and supported the impugned order. It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner levying four charges against the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was held by the respondents and charges No.1, 2 and 4 were found to be proved against the petitioner and charge No.3 was not found proved. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has contended that there were serious allegations levied against the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice was considered in detail by the respondents. He has drawn attention of this Court to document Annexure P-20 which is the resolution passed by the Councillors and has argued that in terms of the said resolution the appointment should have been made. The petitioner without following the said resolution dated 31.05.2023. Thereafter, without approval from the competent authority no employee should be inducted on muster roll on daily rated employees and the order was passed but the petitioner has appointed 13 daily rated employees on muster roll and continued to work and make payments to them. The reply submitted by the petitioner was considered in detailed by the authorities and it was found that 13 muster roll employees were inducted by the petitioner without any due permission and payments from April, 2023 till December, 2023 were made to them. Their verification were also not got done. The payments from June, 2023 till September, 2023 and thereafter November, 2023 their payments were released without taking permission from the Chief Municipal Officer which falls under the category of misconduct. The proposal was for inducting 10 people. However, by overwriting the same was made 13 and the said document is signed by the petitioner, therefore, Charge No.1 levied against the petitioner was found proved.

Charge No.2 was with respect to non-formation of the President in Council. Section 70 of the Act of the 1961 provides for President-in-Council within seven days from the date of election and taking charge to the post. At Nagar Parishad Deori for a period of last one year, there is no formation of President-in-Council. The petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1961. The said charge was also found proved against the petitioner. The entire reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration.

Charge No.3 deals with embezzlement of amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was not found proved against the petitioner.

Charge No.4 deals with purchase of Air Conditioners which after due consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioners were found to be proved. Finding all these charges proved against the petitioner. The authorities have observed that continuation of the petitioner on the post of President in Nagar Palika Parishad, Deori is not in the interest of the State Government and, therefore, passed the order removing her from the post of President.

Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 41-A and submit that only opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to the petitioner. It is contended that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner. She was issued notice to which she has submitted a reply and was also granted an opportunity of personal hearing prior to passing of the order. The charges levied against the petitioner were found to be proved. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot review the findings which have been recorded in the enquiry report which was duly considered while passing the impugned order and cannot re-appreciate the evidence available on record. The Court is only required to see that whether opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and authorities were justified in passing the order impugned or not. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Satyaprakashi Parsedia Vs. State of M.P. and another (Writ Petition No.2943/2017) decided on 06.07.2018. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The order passed in the case of Smt. Satyaprakashi Parsedia was put to challenge in Writ Appeal No.261/2017 by the Nagar Palika Parishad Dabra and the writ appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2017. Writ Appeal No.1129/2018 was filed by Smt. Satyaprakashi Parsedia and the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2018. Thereafter, review petition was filed being Review Petition No.302/2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2021. Against which the matter travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.1529/2022 and vide order dated 11.02.2022 the SLP was withdrawn by the petitioner. Meaning thereby the orders passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.2943/2017 has attained finality.

Counsel appearing for the respondents/intervenor has filed a separate reply. He has virtually adopted the reply filed by the respondents/State. Apartfrom the aforesaid, it is contended that she has already been appointed after passing of the order dated 25.08.2025 by the State Government. She has been appointed vide order dated 29.08.2025 by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, she is entitled to continue as the President of Council until the vacancy is filled up as provided under Section 37 of the Act of 1961. She is also vested with the powers and duties of President provided under Section 51 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, it is not a stop gap arrangement rather it provides for filling of vacancies for the remainder of the term of the Council. The respondents have also constituted a valid PIC and convened a PIC meeting on 01.09.2025 to discuss various agendas and projects related to the development of the town. Until and unless appointment of the respondent is put to challenge by the petitioner, no relief can be extended to her. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in terms of Section 37, the appointment of private respondent is only a stop gap arrangement until a regular incumbent is appointed. Therefore, the interim arrangement made by the respondents after passing of the order in terms of Section 41-A, the petitioner is not required to challenge the same. The petitioner has already obtained an interim order on 03.09.2025. In pursuance to which the petitioner is functioning as a President of the Municipal Council, Deori, District Sagar. Therefore, the contentions raised by the private respondents is of no help to her.

Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has argued that the only requirement in terms of Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act, 1961 is that reasonable opportunity of hearing is granted to the candidate. It is contended that notices were duly issued to which he has submitted his reply and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the order impugned is passed. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. The Election Commissioner in its reply has submitted that in view of the directions given by the authorities, they have conducted the elections. It is contended that in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, the writ petition against the holding of elections after issuance of a notification is not maintainable.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that after contesting elections she was duly elected as President of Municipal Council, Deori District Sagar. She was not permitted by the other Councillors to work and they were creating obstruction in the functioning of the Municipality with an intention to prevent her from discharging her duties. Earlier, no confidence motion was initiated against the petitioner but the same was withdrawn in view of the gazette notification dated 27.08.2024 which provides that no ‘no confidence motion’ can be moved against the elected President after assuming the office for a period of three years. Therefore, the said no confidence motion was recalled vide order dated 23.08.2024. The respondent/Sarita Jain a Councillor of Ward No.11 challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.26077/2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2024. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 who was having personal grudges against the petitioner has written a letter to the Chief of Bhartiya Janta Party alleging therein that the petitioner has acted against the own party during municipal elections, 2024 and requested for a strict action against the petitioner vide letter dated 08.12.2023. The respondent No.6 the In-charge C.M.O. under the dictates of the respondent No.5 has grossly disturbed the lawful functioning of the Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that the Councillors have refused to participate in the President-in-Council meeting or to cooperate in passing of any municipal bills on one hand and on the other hand, they have made a representation to the In-charge CMO on 07.05.2025 seeking organization of a special session of a Council for the purpose of renaming Deori constituency to Devpuri. Despite transfer of one Manish Parte as CMO of council, he was not permitted to join and the respondent No.6 continued to exercise the administrative authority without consent and knowledge of the petitioner. He has also convened a special meeting in absence of the petitioner and passed the resolution of changing the name of Deori to Devpuri. The petitioner moved an application to the respondent No.3 pointing out the misconduct and malicious act of the Councillors and made a specific requests to remove the Councillors exercising powers under Section 41 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. However, no action was taken on the said representation submitted by the petitioner. He was forced to file a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.1092/2025 in the name of Neha Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others, wherein notices were issued on 06.02.2025, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. The reply was filed on 13.01.2026 by the respondents. Thereafter a notice has been issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 41-A dated 15.05.2025 for removal from the post levying four charges against the petitioner. The charges are as follows :-

In pursuance to the charges levied against the petitioner a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioner, clarifying and explaining the charges levied against her. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice clearly reflects that with respect to charge No.1 the decision to induct the employees as well as to make payments to them was taken in pursuance to the approval from the P.I.C. Once there is an approval from the P.I.C. then the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for the same for inducting 13 employees and making payments to them. Charge No.2 relates to non-constitution of President-in-Council by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge and has submitted that other councillors are not permitting the petitioner to constitute President-in-Council. She has already issued notices for constitution of President-in-Council, however, Councillors are not attending the meetings. She has also made a representation to the respondent No.3 pointing out the malicious act of the Councillors and making a specific request to remove the Councillors by taking action in terms of Section 41-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. However, no action has been taken by the respondent No.3, therefore, she preferred a writ petition before this Court which is Writ Petition No.1092/2025 in which notices were issued on 06.02.2025 which is pending adjudication. Therefore, the charge No.2 which has been levied against the petitioner is also not made out. Charge No.3 is not found proved by the Enquiry Committee, therefore, the allegation of misappropriate of funds could not be levied against the petitioner. As far as Charge No.4 is concerned, that relates to purchase of Air Conditioners, counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in the reply, it is clearly mentioned that all the Air Conditioners are purchased from the GEM portal that is the Government portal, therefore, there is no possibility of any misappropriation of funds. He has also produced the records of the purchase book to point out that all the Air Conditioners were purchased and now the allegation is levied that the Air Conditioners are not found fit on verification. Once there was a purchase of Air Conditioners by the petitioner, the Charge No.4 levied against the petitioner is not made out. There may be a difference in prices of Air Conditioners but it is not disputed that the Air Conditioners are purchased from online portal of the Government that is GEM portal, therefore, there cannot be any possibility of misappropriation of funds on the part of the petitioner. It is not a case of the Government that the prices which are quoted on the online portal are on a very higher side which are available in the open market. The GEM portal is being established just to create transparency regarding purchasing of the articles by the Government authorities. Therefore, charge No.4 levied against the petitioner is also not established. The report submitted by the authorities is considered while passing the impugned order does not reflect proper application of mind by the authorities. The authorities have merely quoted the charges levied against the petitioner as well as the complete reply submitted by the petitioner and while carrying out the analysis of the charges levied against the petitioner as well as consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the authorities with respect to charge No.1, in the enquiry it was observed that 13 employees were kept with the permission of the President-in-Council. However, later, it was submitted that a note sheet was circulated under the signature of the petitioner in the capacity of the President, wherein a note sheet was with respect to 10 employees and two Computer operators and one additional employee. By overwriting 10 has been converted into 13 employees. The petitioner has duly signed that note sheet. However, the fact remains that there is a permission to keep 13 Safaikarmi employees on muster roll as well as two computer operators duly approved by the President-in-Council. The said analysis carried out by the authorities is incorrect. Similarly for other charges, the analysis were not properly carried out by the authorities. All the contentions raised in the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been taken note of. There is no application of mind by the authorities. A full fledged inquiry was required to be conducted in the case, but that has not been done.

Section 41-A deals with removal of President or Vice President or Chairman of a Committee is required to be seen. The same reads as under:-

From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is reflected that no such order under the Section shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the concerned. In the present case, notice has been issued by the respondents to which a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioner and opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the petitioner but the fact remains that whether the contents of the reply were properly appreciated by the authorities or not. The argument advanced before this Court is that the only requirement is to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the authorities have permitted the petitioner to file a detailed reply and he was also granted personal hearing, therefore, they have followed the entire procedure. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is an elected President of the Council and the removal of the President from the Council should be in public interest or in the interest of Council on two grounds; that he is incapable of performing his duties or he is working against the provisions of the Act or any Rules made thereunder. There is no such opinion that could be arrived at from the charges levied against the petitioner. Charge of misappropriation of funds were not found proved against him. Charge No.2 which deals with non formation of President-in-Council could not be levied against the petitioner as the petitioner herself is pursuing the matter as the other Councillors are not cooperating for constitution of President-in-Council and he has also filed a writ petition before this Court to the aforesaid effect. Even a representation is submitted to the respondent No.3 to take action against the Councillors for non-cooperation in terms of Section 41 of the Act has not been taken note of by the respondents/ authorities. The entire action has been taken against the petitioner in view of the recommendation made by the MLA pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

The law with respect to removal of President is apparently clear and considered in series of judgments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) has held as under :-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260 has held as under :-

This Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra) has held as under :-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra) has held as under :-

If the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court and the said principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it is seen that the allegations which are levied against the President regarding irregularities cannot be taken into consideration for invoking Section 41-A for removal of President.

The question which comes up for consideration before this Court whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of the petitioner as President is not desirable or permissible in public interest or in the interest of the Council. None of the conclusions made in the enquiry report shows that such an act of the petitioner has caused any severe loss to the public interest because of which the interest of the Council is badly hampered.

The Hon’ble Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 has observed that “However lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standards of administrative ability while holding the high post would not themselves constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to the negligence and would be such as to be irreparable or resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high.”

In the case of Kaushaliya Bai Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 1 MPLJ 368, it was held that the removal of President of Nagar Panchayat can be done when the charges of such serious nature as to warrant of grave action of removal is levied against him. The power under Section 41-A is an extraordinary power which can be invoked sparingly and cannot be invoked on trivial irregularities.

In the case of Rajeev Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 28, this Court had an occasion to deal with the aspect of removal of President of Municipal Council exercising power under Section 41-A and it was held that decision of the State Government is open to judicial review. The review before the State Government will not be an alternative and efficacious remedy. Removal of President of Municipal Council must be in public interest and irregularity alleged should be of such serious nature that continuation of such person as President is undesirable.

In the case of Sharda Mittal (supra), the Court has already considered the aspect that the appointment of muster roll employees was made after the approval of the P.I.C., therefore, the petitioner cannot be held solely responsible for the same as the same is a joint decision taken by P.I.C. and the petitioner cannot be singularly punished for the same. The Court in the case of Sharda Mittal (supra) has considered the aforesaid aspect. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Vs. Sikandar Soni reported in (2006) 3 SCC 736 has considered the aspect that the single act of omission or error of judgment would not attract penal action unless such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences. While passing the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the judgment passed in the case of P.H.Kalyani Vs. Air France Calcutta reported in AIR 1963 SC 1756. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take a judicial review of the order passed by the administrative authority as well as the State Government. The legal principles enumerated in the aforesaid cases is that in matters concerning removal of democratically elected people, this Court can very well look into the matter to point out whether the removal is based upon cogent and compelling reasons. Whether interest of public, interest of council have been properly considered and whether material on the basis of which action has been taken is of such a nature that person can be held to be responsible for having misuse his/her office to such an extent that retaining him in the office will have serious and far reaching consequences. The holder of an office (President) being a democratically elected office, his removal from the office, which is an extreme step, must be resorted to only in grave and exceptional circumstances and not for a minor irregularities. The action of removal cast a serious stigma on the person and public life of the office bearer concern and may even result in disqualification to hold the office for the next time.

If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can safely be said that the authorities have not applied its mind and has held the petitioner responsible for the Charges No.1, 2 and 4 proved against the petitioner and action for removal is taken based upon the said charges, but the fact remains that charges are not of so grave nature warranting removal of petitioner from the post of President-in-Council. Even otherwise, there is no application of mind by the authorities and non-consideration of the complete reply by the authorities.

Even otherwise, it is pointed out that during the pendency of this petition, the respondents have passed another order dated 26.12.2025 which is passed by the M.P. Election Commissioner whereby directions has been issued to the Collector regarding proceeding for recall of petitioner from the post of President of Municipal Council, Deori by framing an election programme for holding a fresh election purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh of Municipalities Act, 1961. Against the said order a writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No.779 of 2026. Prior to the disposal of the petition, it has been informed by the counsel for the State that the election has been conducted and in total 13367 votes were casted for which result was declared. The result was declared by the Returning Officer on 21.01.2026 which reflects as under:-

"नगरोप�कि�क� परिरोषदाa दा�वरो क� अध्यक्ष श्र मांकि' न�ह� अ�क�श जा*न क� व�पस

In view of the result declared on 21.01.2026, the petitioner was permitted to continue on the post of President and the Writ Petition No.779/2026 was disposed off. This goes to show that almost 50% of the votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the authorities directing removal of the petitioner from the post of President is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.