Back
2011 (3) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Afjal Imam — Appellant
versus
State of Bihar and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2843 of 2011
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21928 of 2010)
Decided on : 19-4-2011
AIR 1955 SC 549; AIR 1952 SC 75 – Relied upon
(b) Interpretation of Statutes – Interpreting Section 22 of the Bihar Municipal Act as providing for one time act, would amount to supplying the words ‘only by the first Chief Councillor and not by his successors in office’ in section 21(3) – Not permissible – a (Para 27)
(c) Interpretation of Statutes – Interpretation must depend on the text and the context – One should proceed from whole to part – Legislative intention is paramount and it can be ascertained from the text – Harmonious interpretation means giving effect to all provisions. (Para 30)
AIR 1987 SC 1023 : (1987) 1 SCC 424; (1990) 1 SCC 277; (2001) 8 SCC 540; AIR 1959 SC 422; AIR 1972 SC 878 – Relied upon
(d) Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious construction – One of the methods is to make cross-reference to the relevant sections – a (Para 33)
AIR 1950 PC 81; (2008) 9 SCC 648 – Relied upon
(e) Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Section 27 – Interpretation of Statutes – Reading down – Intention of the legislature is to have a ‘Mayor-in-Council’ who enjoys the confidence of the Municipal House – There is no reason to treat the subsequently elected Mayor differently, and deny him the right to nominate his nominees on the Empowered Committee – Doing so will be treating him dissimilarly making section 27 violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the powers of the Mayor under section 21(3) of the Act – Reading section 27 by making a cross-reference and making the same subject to sections 25 (4), 23 (3), 21 (3) and 21 (4) will lead to a harmonious functioning of the Municipal Corporation and will also save the section from being ultra vires Article 14. (Paras 35 and 38)
(2000) 6 SCC 12 – Relied upon
2009 (2) PLJR 394; 2010 (2) PLJR 1072; 2010 (3) PLJR 285 – Overruled
Facts of the case:
1. This case relates to tenure of Members of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council.
2. A question arises as to whether the members of the Empowered Standing Committee nominated by a Mayor/Chief Councillor continue in their office or vacate it by implication, when a vacancy arises in the post of a Mayor/Chief Councillor either on account of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, and when a new Mayor/Chief Councillor is elected in that vacancy.
Finding of the Court:
There is no reason to treat the subsequently elected Mayor differently, and deny him the right to nominate his nominees on the Empowered Committee.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Gokhale J. —
Leave granted.
By the order passed by us on April 1, 2011, we had allowed this appeal. We had, further, observed that we will indicate our reasons by a separate judgment. We do so herein.
2. The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, like other Municipal Acts, provides for the election of the Municipal Councillors, the Mayor or Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor. It also provides for an Empowered Standing Committee to exercise the executive power of the Municipality. This committee is supposed to consist of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and seven other Councillors nominated by the Mayor/Chief Councillor under section 21 (3) of this Act. Section 27 of this Act provides that the term of office of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the members of the Empowered Standing Committee shall be co-terminous with the duration of members of the Municipality. The Act provides for the removal of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor under section 25 (4) of the Act by a vote of no confidence, which can be moved only after two years from taking over of the charge of the post. Section 23 (3) of the Act provides for the election of a new Mayor/Chief Councillor when a vacancy arises in the office of Mayor/Chief Councillor on account of death, resignation, removal or otherwise. There is, however, no specific provision for the removal of the members of the Empowered Standing Committee appointed by the earlier Mayor or for nomination of new members on the Committee in their place by the newly elected Mayor/Chief Councillor, thereby leading to an anomalous situation, namely that the Municipal Council will have a new Mayor/Chief Councillor having the confidence of the house, but the members on the Committee nominated by the previous Mayor/Chief Councillor who has lost the confidence of the house will continue to remain on the committee.
3. Questions of Law arising in this appeal A question, therefore, arises as to whether the members of the Empowered Standing Committee nominated by a Mayor/Chief Councillor continue in their office or vacate it by implication, when a vacancy arises in the post of a Mayor/Chief Councillor either on account of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, and when a new Mayor/Chief Councillor is elected in that vacancy. This appeal raises the consequential question as to whether section 27 of the Act should be read as it is and without reference to other connected sections, meaning thereby whether the members of the Empowered Standing Committee will continue to hold office (for the entire period of the municipal body) even if the nominator Mayor/Chief Councillor is no longer in the office? Or, whether such a reading of section 27 treats a newly elected Mayor dissimilarly, and therefore, whether section 27 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India? In that event, can it be saved by reading it down harmoniously by implication in line with and subject to sections 25 (4), 23 (3) and 21 (3) of the Act, thereby holding that the term of nominated members shall be co-terminous with the nominating Mayor, and they will automatically vacate their office when the Mayor nominating them is no longer in the office, and that the newly elected Mayor/Chief Councillor will have the authority to nominate seven members of his choice on the Empowered Standing Committee?
4. Facts leading to this appeal:-
The Election to the Patna Municipal Corporation was held sometime in May/June, 2007. The Municipal Corporation has 72 members. After the election of the Municipal Corporation, the councillors elected one Shri Sanjay Kumar as the Mayor and one Shri Santosh Mehta as the Deputy Mayor. Two years later, no confidence motions were moved against both of them on 13.6.2009, and were passed on 14.7.2009. As far as the motion against the Mayor is concerned, we are informed that 42 members voted in favour thereof and 28 opposed it. One member is reported to have remained absent bein
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
