Dissolution of Municipal Board based on undisclosed enquiry reports violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioners, elected councillors of Purulia Municipality, challenged a show-cause notice dated November 19, 2025, and a subsequent order dated December 16, 2025, whereby the Governor dissolved the Board of Councillors.

The dissolution was based on a mass petition alleging gross neglect of municipal services.

Simultaneously, the Governor appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadar, as the Administrator.

The petitioners contended that the state failed to provide an opportunity to remedy defaults under Section 430 and failed to disclose the mass petition or the District Magistrate’s enquiry report used to justify the dissolution.

1. Whether the State Government properly formed a prima facie opinion as required under Section 431(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, prior to issuing the show-cause notice.

2. Whether the dissolution of the Board was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-disclosure of the inquiry report.

The Court primarily applied Section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, which empowers the State to intervene in cases of "gross neglect or serious irregularity".

Section 431(1) mandates that the State must first form an "opinion" of gross neglect as a sine qua non for initiating proceedings.

The Court contrasted this with Section 430, which governs simple defaults and requires the State to fix a period for the Board to remedy the breach.

Additionally, the Court relied on the principle of Natural Justice, which requires the disclosure of adverse materials (like inquiry reports) used in a decision-making process, as established in Maisura Begam vs. The State of West Bengal.

The Court found that the show-cause notice was issued on November 19, 2025, yet the State’s ultimate decision to dissolve the Board relied on a District Magistrate’s report dated December 9, 2025.

Therefore, the State could not have formed the requisite prima facie opinion of "gross neglect" required by Section 431(1) at the time the notice was issued.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the dissolution order specifically cited findings from the District Magistrate’s report—material that was never supplied to the petitioners.

The Court reasoned that the failure to disclose this report deprived the Board of an appropriate opportunity to defend itself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the state’s action legally unsustainable.

The Court set aside the order dated December 16, 2025, dissolving the Board of Councillors, as well as the order appointing the Administrator and its subsequent extension. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that all legal consequences of quashing the orders shall follow.