Invalid corrigendum removal of Municipal Board member's vested rights emphasized by Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan held that the corrigendum issued for the removal and replacement of a nominated member of the Municipal Board was illegal as it affected the vested rights of the first respondent. The court emphasized the importance of following due process, providing natural justice, and issuing clear notifications in such matters. The writ appeal challenging the removal was dismissed, affirming the protection of the first respondent's vested rights and the necessity of lawful procedures in administrative actions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the removal of a nominated member of the Municipal Board and replacement with another member.
2. Interpretation of legal provisions under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 regarding the nomination and removal of members.
3. Consideration of the principles of natural justice in the removal process.
4. Examination of the legality of issuing a corrigendum in the context of removal and nomination of members.
5. Protection of vested rights of the first respondent in the face of the corrigendum.

Issue 1: Validity of the removal and replacement of a nominated member:
The case involved a challenge against the removal of a nominated member of the Municipal Board and the subsequent replacement with another member. The respondent contended that the removal was done without following the prescribed procedure under the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The State argued that the replacement was due to a mistake in the initial nomination. The court examined the legal provisions and held that a mere corrigendum was insufficient for the removal and nomination process. The court emphasized the necessity of a clear notification for such actions to be valid.

Issue 2: Interpretation of legal provisions under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act:
The court analyzed Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, which empowers the State Government to nominate members to the Municipal Board. The court considered the provisions related to the nomination and withdrawal of members and the requirement to follow due procedure for removal. The court referred to relevant case laws to interpret the statutory provisions and emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures.

Issue 3: Consideration of principles of natural justice:
The respondent argued that the removal lacked adherence to the principles of natural justice as no charges were framed under Section 63 of the Act. The court examined the contentions and emphasized the importance of following due process and providing a fair opportunity to the concerned member before any removal action is taken.

Issue 4: Legality of issuing a corrigendum in removal and nomination process:
The court discussed the legality of issuing a corrigendum in the context of removing and nominating members. It cited precedents where corrigendum was deemed permissible only for rectifying clerical errors and not for amending substantive decisions. The court held that the corrigendum in this case, which effectively removed the vested rights of the first respondent, was illegal and not in accordance with law.

Issue 5: Protection of vested rights of the first respondent:
The court emphasized the protection of vested rights of the first respondent in the face of the corrigendum issued by the Government. It held that the corrigendum, which resulted in the removal and replacement of the first respondent, could not nullify the rights conferred upon the individual without following the due process. The court ruled in favor of protecting the vested rights of the first respondent.

In conclusion, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the corrigendum issued for the removal and replacement of a nominated member of the Municipal Board was illegal as it affected the vested rights of the first respondent. The court emphasized the importance of following due process, providing natural justice, and issuing clear notifications in such matters. The writ appeal challenging the removal was dismissed, affirming the protection of the first respondent's vested rights and the necessity of lawful procedures in administrative actions.

---