IMPORTANT POINT
Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the power to dispose of the property vests in the Commissioner and not in the Corporation and as such, the employees of the Municipal Corporation cannot claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation, which are not initiated or moved but objected to by the Municipal Commissioner.

Headnote:Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 200-Disposal of Property-Power to dispose of property vest in Commissioner and not in Corporation-Obtaining sanction by Commissioner from Corporation is mandatory-Municipal Corporation passing resolution to sell properties, quarters to, employees-Resolution objected to by Municipal Commissioner-Employees cannot claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on basis of resolutions passed by Municipal Corporation.
       The scheme of the Sections 3, 42, 43, 54, 59 and 200 makes it abundantly clear that the entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act vests in the Commissioner. His functions and duties are statutorily prescribed. His appointment is also to be made by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Similarly, the functions of the Standing Committee and other committees are also prescribed. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, we have to consider the scheme of Section 200 which empowers the Commissioner to dispose of the moveable property or grant lease of any immovable property or to sell the same subject to the conditions provided thereunder. On the condition of obtaining sanction of the Corporation, the power to transfer immovable property, the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees vests in the Commissioner. Result is-the Commissioner can transfer such immovable property only after obtaining sanction of the Corporation. Obtaining of sanction by the Commissioner is mandatory. The effect of the non-observance of the statutory prescription would vitiate the transfer. This would also mean that the power to dispose of the property would vest in the Commissioner and not in the Corporation. No specific power is conferred upon the Corporation for such transfer. The scheme envisages checks and balances for disposal of immovable property on the power of the Commissioner. (Para 15)
       Therefore the employees of the Municipal Corporation cannot claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation, which are not initiated or moved but objected to by the Municipal Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at no point of time, Municipal Commissioner has decided or agreed to transfer the Municipal quarters in favour of its employees/allottees. There is no legal right to claim ownership on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Corporation as the said resolutions are without any power or authority. (Paras 1 & 15)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-The question involved in this group of special leave petitions is-Whether the employees of Municipal Corporation can claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation, which are not initiated or moved but objected to by the Municipal Commissioner? It is the contention of the petitioners that once the Corporation passes the resolution for such tranfers, the Commissioner has to abide by it and on objection being taken by him the resolution cannot be nullified. The submission, in our view, is without any substance because of the specific statutory provisions under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. Facts of the present case reveal that since 1970 the Municipal Corporation had been passing resolutions, one after another, for transferring the quarters to its employees. The said resolutions are objected to by the Municipal Commissioner on one ground or the other. The Corporation was superseded three times on the same count. On one occasion, Corporation requested the Government to amend Section 200 suitably so as to empower the Corporation to transfer the immovable property. It is pointed out that the Corporation acquired land and formulated a scheme known as "Northern City Extension Scheme I" for residential purposes, with provisions also for a shopping area. On a plot of land measuring 2750 sq. yards on Mandelian Road a three-storey building was constructed. On 7.5.1968, the M.C.D. passed the first Resolution No. 143 and approved the proposal of sale of flats and shops by public auction. The said flats and shops were put up for public auction on 4.8.1968 and again 6.10.1968. All the shops were disposed of but as the bids received for residential flats were below the reserve price, the bids for flats were rejected. Thereafter, by resolution No. 433 dated 27.7.1970 the MCD decided that the flats may be allotted to the officers of the Corporation on the basis of their salary so that the Corporation may at least be in a position to get a reasonable return from the investment. It was further resolved that the cost of flats to be allotted to the officers be borne from the Revenue of the "General Account" and transferred to the "Remunerative Project Account". Again, by resolution No. 868 dated 4.12.1970, it was decided that the flats be sold to the municipal employees on "no profit no loss basis" and the allottees be charged at 15% of the assessed cost in the first instance and the balance in easy instalments spread over a period of ten years.

3. The legal advisor considered the above resolution No. 868 and opined two difficulties in implementing that same i.e. (1) Section 200(d) of the Municipal Act, and (2) in some colonies the flats were built after taking loan from Central Govt./Delhi Admn. on the condition that the same will remain as municipal property and will not be sold to its employees. Hence, the matter was placed for review before the Corporation. The Corporation by its resolution No. 13 dated 25.4.1972 reiterated its earlier decision.

4. Thereafter, the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of his powers conferred by Section 487 raised an objection to the passing of the aforementioned resolution which, in his opinion, was in violation of mandate of Section 200(d) and hence issued a show-cause notice as to why a direction may not be issued for making arrangement for proper performance of the duties. Again, legal opinion was obtained by the Corporation wherein the Corporation was informed that under Section 200(d) of the Act the Corporation cannot sell any immovable property below the market rate and the resolution was not consistent with the mandatory provisions of law. Again, by resolution No. 437 dated 31.7.1973 it was decided to reiterate earlier decision taken on dated 4.12.1970. It was also resolved that with a view to overcome the legal impediments in the way of the implementation of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document