Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Sec. 238(1) Supersession of Municipal Committee ordered-allegations on which order passed-committee whether entitled to offer explanation-failure to observe principle of audi alteram partem-whether vitiates order.

Administrative Law-Natural Justice-Hearing opportunity whether to be a 'double opportunity-one on factual allegation and another on proposed penalty.

The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which is the law applicable to the New Delhi Municipal Committee empowers by Section 238(1), the Delhi Administration by a notification to supersede a Municipal Committee if in its view, the Municipal Committee is incompetent to perform or persistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed by the Act or under any other Act, or exceeds or abuses its powers.

Exercising the powers under this section the Lt. Governor, Delhi, superseded the New Delhi Municipal Committee on the ground that it had made persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under the law and had abused its powers resulting in wastage of municipal funds. Four grounds were enumerated in the order of supersession.

In their writ petition two non-official members of the superseded committee impugned the order of supersession contending that the order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair-play. The Full Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition held that although the Committee should have been given an opportunity to state its case, since the Committee was aware of the allegations in 3 out of 4 grounds, mere failure to observe principles of natural justice did not vitiate the order.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Committee had no opportunity to offer their explanation in regard to the allegations on which the order of supersession was passed and failure to observe principles of natural justice vitiated the order of supersession.

On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that (1) Section 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act did not contemplate that an opportunity should be given to the Committee before an order of supersession was passed, (2) neither the Committee nor its members had any beneficial interest in the continuance of the Committee and the supersession of the Committee did not involve any civil consequences entitling it to a right to be heard, (3) when the question of the disqualification of any individual member was involved, section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act expressly provided for an opportunity being given to the member concerned, whereas section 238(1) did not provide for such as opportunity and so by necessary implication the principle of audi alteram partem was excluded, and (4) section 238(1) also contemplated emergent situation where quick action might be necessary to avert a disaster and in such a situation if the demands of natural justice were to be met, the very object of the provisions would be frustrated.