The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside the Chhattisgarh government’s decision to remove and disqualify the President of the Sarangarh Municipal Council, holding that the action was arbitrary, discriminatory, and taken in violation of the law.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal allowed a writ appeal filed by Smt. Soni Ajay Banjare, who was elected as President of the Sarangarh Municipal Council in January 2022.
The court overturned an earlier order of a single judge that had upheld the state government’s decision taken under Section 41-A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.
The case related to the allotment of small pieces of municipal land on lease to private persons for construction or expansion of shops. These allotments were approved through resolutions of the President-in-Council and later placed before the general body of the Municipal Council. Complaints were later made that possession of the land was handed over before receiving mandatory approval from the state government and before completing the required procedure under the 1996 rules governing transfer of municipal property.
After an inquiry, the Urban Administration and Development Department issued a show-cause notice to the municipal president in March 2025. In July 2025, the State of Chhattisgarh ordered her removal from office and disqualified her from contesting the next term, citing procedural violations and public interest concerns.
The High Court found serious legal flaws in this decision. It noted that the decisions in question were collective decisions of the municipal body and that there was no specific finding of personal wrongdoing, mala fide intent, or abuse of power by the elected president. The bench said that removal of an elected representative is an extreme step and can be taken only for very serious reasons, not for technical or procedural lapses.
The court also pointed out discriminatory treatment. According to the inquiry report, several councillors were involved in the same decisions, but documents relied upon by the government were supplied only to the appellant. Other councillors had succeeded in challenging similar proceedings on the ground that they were denied these materials. Singling out the municipal president for removal, without taking similar action against other councillors or officials who implemented the decisions, showed arbitrariness, the bench observed.
The judges further held that the requirement of a fair hearing was not met, stressing that providing all relied-upon documents is a basic part of natural justice. The court concluded that the legal conditions required to invoke Section 41-A were not satisfied in this case.
Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed both the July 2025 removal order and the December 2025 single-judge judgment, and restored the appellant to her position. At the same time, the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and granted liberty to the state government to initiate fresh proceedings, strictly in accordance with law, if necessary, within two weeks.