Panchayat Board and Others vs Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, Madras and Another

Subba Rao, J.—This application is for quashing the order of the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards dated 20th December

1950 superseding u/s 45-A(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act the Kudaravalli Panchayat Board for a period of one year. On 12th October

1950 the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards issued a notice to the Panchayat Board calling upon them to show cause within 15

days from the date of the receipt of the notice why the Panchayat Board should not be superseded u/s 45-A (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act.

In that notice, the Inspector stated the following reasons for the proposed action: (1) For the year 1949-50, the Panchayat Board realised a large

amount from the proceeds of the grass sales but only credited a sum of Rs. 364; (2) No amenity worth the name has been provided by the

Panchayat Board and that they have not kept the fresh water tank in a sanitary condition; (3) the Panchayat Board has not ''checked the President

or reported to the higher authorities the following irregularities; (a) the President has been keeping large cash balance on hand but the Board failed

to pull up the President; and (b) the President failed to serve notice of meetings with agenda to the members.

To this notice the Panchayat Board filed a statement explaining the charges made against the President and also the members of the Panchayat

Board. The Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards considered the reports of the subordinate officers and the explanation of the

Panchayat Board together with the remarks made by the District Panchayat Officer and was satisfied that action should be taken against the

Panchayat Board u/s 45-A (1). On 20th December 1950 the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards passed an order superseding the

Panchayat Board.

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised before me three points: (1) the order of the Inspector was based upon non-existing facts; (2) the

order was made mala fide having regard to extraneous circumstances and (3) the order does not disclose the reasons as a judicial order should do.

The petitioner has filed a long affidavit before me canvassing the various reasons disclosed in the notice issued by the Inspector for the action

taken by him. After going through the affidavit in some detail, though there is the possibility of another tribunal coming to a different conclusion, I

cannot say that there is no material on which the Inspector could have come to the conclusion which he did. Nor am I satisfied by the allegations

made in the affidavit that the proceedings were started not in the interests of the Board but for other extraneous reasons. There is also no materials

to hold that the Inspector acted mala fide in the exercise of his jurisdiction.

Mr. Narasaraju then argued that drastic power in the hands of an Officer is susceptible of abuse if he is not bound to give reasons for his

satisfaction. In support of his argument he relied upon my order in - ''W. P. No. 171 of 1951''. There I held that the Government in setting aside

the orders of inferior tribunals u/s 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act should disclose the reasons in their order. But the Government in exercising the

power u/s 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is exercising revisional jurisdiction, whereas in the case of an Inspector, though he has got to exercise

his functions judicially, the section does not impose on him a duty to give reasons for his action. I agree with Mr. Narasaraju that in the interests of

public institutions in this country, an officer, however competent and otherwise honest, cannot be entrusted with drastic powers without the

elementary safeguard that he should give reasons for his action. But it is for the Legislature to amend the Act suitably having regard to the changed

circumstances after this country had become independent. But on the section as it stands I am not prepared to extend the principle laid down by

me in -- ''W. P. No. 171 of 1951'' to an order u/s 45-A (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act. This petition is dismissed with costs, one set.

Advocate''s fee Rs. 100.