2010 Supreme(SC) 335

2010 (3) Supreme 343
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Sau. Laxmi Verma — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.3411-3412 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23171-23172 of 2009]
Decided on : 19-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere putting initials at certain places scored out before the Collector, would not amount to putting the signatures in the resignation letter before the Collector himself in terms of Section 41(2) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

Headnote:Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965- Section 41(2)- Respondent No. 6, an elected Councillor of Ward No. 8 of Municipal Council, Achalpur, District Amravati. wrote a letter to the Collector, threatening to resign, if certain demands made by him were not fulfilled-Since the demands were not fulfilled, he tendered his resignation- Collector accepted his resignation and proceeded to arrange for elections of Ward No. 8, from which Respondent No. 6 was earlier elected - In the meantime, Respondent No. 6 filed a Revision Application before Additional Commissioner stating that he had in fact not resigned in accordance with law and there had been complete violation of Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act and that no fresh election should be conducted-In the fresh elections, Appellant was elected as Councillor - Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision Application filed by Respondent No. 6, set aside the order of Collector, thereby restoring the status of Municipal Councillor to Respondent No. 6.-Writ Petition-Dismissed-Letters Patent Appeal-Dismissed-Appeals- After going through section (2) of Section 41 of the Act, the plain and only conclusion that can be arrived at is that resignation has to be tendered by the Councillor addressed to the Collector- It is to be delivered by him in person and then he has to affix his signature before the Collector on compliance of aforesaid conditions, then only such resignation shall be effective- It could not be disputed that an obligation was created by Statute to perform it in the manner as provided therein, then in case of its non-compliance, effect thereof would be rendered redundant and invalid in law- Collector himself admitted, that letter of resignation was already typed, on which signature of Respondent No. 6 was already appearing- He went through the same and only asked him to put his initials at place scored out in the said resignation-Putting of initials at the place where some portion of resignation was deleted, would neither amount nor can be construed to have been signed in presence of the Collector-Hence there was no valid, proper and legal resignation tendered by Respondent No. 6 in as much as admittedly, said resignation was not signed by Respondent No. 6 in presence of the Collector which was mandatorily required to be done-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 18 to 23)

       Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965- Section 41(2)- Scope and ambit of -Section 41(2) of the Act requires that a Councillor may resign his office unconditionally at any time by notice in writing in his hand,to be addressed to the Collector-It further requires that such resignation has to be delivered in person and signed before the Collector, then only such resignation shall be effective- Thus, mere putting initials at certain places scored out before the Collector, would not amount to putting signatures in the resignation letter before the Collector himself. (Para 10)

       Facts of the Case :

       Respondent No. 6, an elected Councillor of Ward No. 8 of Municipal Council,Achalpur, District Amravati. wrote a letter to the Collector, threatening to resign, if certain demands made by him were not fulfilled herein in the instant case.Since the demands were not fulfilled, he,, tendered his resignation. Collector accepted his resignation and proceeded to arrange for elections of Ward No. 8, from which Respondent No. 6 was earlier elected . In the meantime, Respondent No. 6 filed a Revision Application before Additional Commissioner stating that he had in fact not resigned in accordance with law and there had been complete violation of Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act and that no fresh election should be conducted.In the fresh elections,Appellant was elected as Councillor . Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision Application filed by Respondent No. 6, and set aside the order of Collector, Thereby restoring the status of Municipal Councillor to Respondent No. 6.Writ Petition and Letters Patent Appeal filed against said order were Dismissed.

       2.Present appeals have been filed against said order.

       Findings of the Court :

       After going through section (2) of Section 41 of the Act, the plain and only conclusion that can be arrived at is that resignation has to be tendered by the Councillor addressed to the Collector. It is to be delivered by him in person and then he has to affix his signature before the Collector on compliance of aforesaid conditions, then only such resignation shall be effective. It could not be disputed that an obligation was created by Statute to perform it in the manner as provided therein, then in case of its non-compliance, effect thereof would be rendered redundant and invalid in law. Collector himself admitted, that letter of resignation was already typed, on which signature of Respondent No. 6 was already appearing. He went through the same and only asked him to put his initials at place scored out in the said resignation.Putting of initials at the place where some portion of resignation was deleted, would neither amount nor can be construed to have been signed in presence of the Collector.Hence there was no valid, proper and legal resignation tendered by Respondent No. 6 in as much as admittedly, said resignation was not signed by Respondent No. 6 in presence of the Collector which was mandatorily required to be done. No case was made out for interference in the matter. Appeals were dismissed.