MP HC Dismisses Damoh Municipal President’s Challenge To Proposed Removal, Orders Inquiry Report Supplied For Her Reply

The petitioner, President of Municipal Council Damoh, challenged a show-cause notice dated 22 October 2026 issued under Section 41-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, following a preliminary inquiry into a complaint by a local MLA.

She alleged that the inquiry was conducted behind her back and without an opportunity to be heard.

The State argued that no hearing was required at the preliminary stage and that the petitioner should respond to the notice; it also objected that a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice was premature.

Section 41-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order removing an office-bearer is passed; removal of an elected representative is a serious measure and must comply with natural justice and the statutory process.

The Court relied on Smt. Satyaprakashi Pharsedia v. State of M.P. for the principle that a hearing is not ordinarily required during a preliminary inquiry.

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab on the safeguards owed to elected office-bearers facing removal.

Sharda Kailash Mittal v. State of M.P. on the need for strong and weighty reasons to invoke Section 41-A.

Under Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, a show-cause notice ordinarily does not give rise to a cause of action for writ intervention before a final decision, subject to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction.

The Court treated the inquiry as preliminary and held that the petitioner had no right to a hearing at that stage; the notice itself provided an opportunity to answer the allegations.

The petitioner could submit her defence, and the authorities were expected to hear her and follow Section 41-A before making any final order. Because no final adverse order had been passed, the challenge to the notice was premature.

However, the Court accepted that access to the preliminary inquiry report was needed for a proper response; the State raised no objection to supplying it.

It directed the respondents to supply the preliminary inquiry report to the petitioner so that she could file a proper reply to the show-cause notice.