Judgement

BACHAWAT, J. : This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the show cause notice dated July 21, 1965 and the order dated September 29, 1965, superseding the Municipal Corporation of the city of Nagpur. In July, 1962 the term of office of the present councilors commenced. On July 21, 1965, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notice to respondent No. 1, the Mayor of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, asking him to show cause why the corporation should not be superseded. On August 1, 1965, respondent No. 1 filed his reply to the show-cause notice. On September 29, 1965, the State Government passed the impugned order superseding the corporation under Ss. 408 and 409 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (C. P. and Berar Act II of 1950). On September 30, 1965, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and the order of super-session. The High Court held that the State Government exercised its power under S. 408 on grounds which were not reasonably related to its legitimate exercise and the finding upon which the order was passed was rationally impossible on the materials before the State Government. The State of Maharashtra now appeals to this court on a certificate granted by the High Court.

2. Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act 1948 is in these terms:-

"408. (1) If at any time upon representations made or otherwise it appears to the State Government that the Corporation is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or exceeds or abuses its powers the State Government may, after having given an opportunity to the Corporation to show cause why such an order should not be made, or, if it appears to the State Government that the case is one of emergency, forthwith issue an order directing that all the Councillors shall retire from office as and from such date as may be appointed and declare the Corporation to be superseded. Such order shall be published in the Gazette and the reasons for making it shall be stated therein.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 17 and 20, all Councillors shall vacate their office from the date mentioned in any order under sub-section (1)."

3. The consequence of supersession of the corporation under S. 408 is that all its members vacate their office, all powers and duties of the corporation, the Standing Committee and the chief executive officer may be exercised by the administrator of the city appointed by the State Government, and all property vested in the corporation vests in the administrator (S. 408).

4. The conditions for the exercise of the power under S. 408 are clearly stated in the section. It must appear to the State Government that the corporation is not competent or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under the Act or any other law for the time being in force, or exceeds or abuses its powers. Except in cases of emergency, the State Government must give to the corporation an opportunity to show cause why the order under the section should not be made. If on a consideration of the explanation submitted by the corporation, the State Government considers that there is no ground for making the order, the Government may drop the proceeding. Otherwise, it may issue an order declaring the corporation to be superseded and directing that all the councillors shall retire from office. The order must be published in the gazette and the reasons for making it must be stated therein. There is no appeal to the court from the order under S. 408. In a writ application the court will not review the facts as an appellate body. But the order is liable to be set aside if no reasonable person on a proper consideration of the materials before the State Government could form the opinion that th