Back
1957 Supreme(AP) 200
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Ved Prakash Dusaj - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-25-57
The provisions of clause (m) of section 88 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1956, prohibited any business being transacted at the adjourned meeting other than that remaining undisposed at the meeting.
Headnote:
ELECTION - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - STANDING COMMITTEE - ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING - ELECTION OF MEMBER - VALIDITY - URGENT BUSINESS - NOTICE - CONSENT OF COUNCILLORS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Municipal Councillor, challenged the election of the 4th respondent as a member of the Standing Committee of the Secunderabad Municipal Corporation, alleging that the meeting at which the election was held was not properly constituted and that the subject of the election could not be brought before the meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the adjournment of the meeting by the Mayor without the consent of the majority of the councillors present was invalid, and that the councillors present could, in the absence of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, choose any one of them to be the Chairman of the meeting and continue the meeting. The Court further held that the subject of the election to the Standing Committee could not have been brought before the adjourned meeting as urgent business, as the provisions of clause (m) of section 88 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1956, prohibited any business being transacted at the adjourned meeting other than that remaining undisposed at the meeting.
Issues: 1. Whether the adjournment of the meeting by the Mayor without the consent of the majority of the councillors present was valid? 2. Whether the councillors present could, in the absence of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, choose any one of them to be the Chairman of the meeting and continue the meeting? 3. Whether the subject of the election to the Standing Committee could have been brought before the adjourned meeting as urgent business?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the adjournment of the meeting by the Mayor without the consent of the majority of the councillors present was invalid, as clause (m) of section 88 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1956, required any meeting to be adjourned with the consent of a majority of the councillors present. 2. The Court held that the councillors present could, in the absence of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, choose any one of them to be the Chairman of the meeting and continue the meeting, as clause (g) of section 88 of the Act provided that every meeting shall be presided over by the Mayor and in his absence by the Deputy Mayor or in the absence of both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor by such one of the councillors present as may be chosen by the meeting to be the Chairman for the occasion. 3. The Court held that the subject of the election to the Standing Committee could not have been brought before the adjourned meeting as urgent business, as clause (m) of section 88 of the Act prohibited any business being transacted at the adjourned meeting other than that remaining undisposed at the meeting.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and directed the corporation to proceed according to law in electing a member to the Standing Committee.
( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by this is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any order or direction against the Secunderabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) represented by the Commissioner to forbear from giving effect to the resolution passed by it on 20th July, 1957, electing the 4th respondent as a member of the Standing Committee and to compel the Corporation to hold the election in the vacancy on the Standing Committee according to law. The petitioner Ved Prakash Dusaj, the 3rd Respondent Mukundas M. Malani and the 4th Respondent Mallikarjuna Rao, are Municipal Councillors and the and respondent Venkata Pathi Raju, is the Secretary of the Corporation. The facts leading to the present dispute are as follows : it appears that the municipal elections of the Corporation were held in the middle of the year 1956 and pursuant to a notice issued to the Councillors under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a meeting of the Corporation was held on 17th July, 1957, to transact the business of the Corporation as specified in the said notice and the supplementary notice, at which A. Viswanatham and A. Narayanaswami were elected the Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively, and the meeting adjourned to aoth July, 1957 to consider the other items left over in the notice. On 18th July, 1957, the Mayor who was also a member of the Standing Committee of the Corporation tendered his resignation to the Standing Committee and on 19th July, 1957, the Standing Committee at its meeting accepted the resignation and directed that this fact should be intimated to the general body with a request for election of another member in his place. At the adjourned meeting held on the 20th July, 1957, during the consideration of the note dated 25th April, 1957, from the Commissioner pertaining to the plying of rickshaws, the Mayor, according to the minutes, is reported to have stated that he had to attend another important engagement at 6-30 P. M. , and so he was adjourning the meeting.
( 2 ) SO saying he stood up. Before the Mayor got down from the dais, one Satyanarayana gupta while referring to section 88 (m) of the Act said that the Mayor cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of the members and in the absence of a motion for such adjournment and its acceptance by majority vote, the action of the Mayor would become ultra vires and contrary to the Act. The Mayor, however, left, stating that he had already adjourned the meeting. He was followed by nine councillors including the Deputy Mayor, A. Narayanaswami. Thereafter, on the proposal of Satyanarayana Gupta which was seconded by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent was elected to preside over the meeting at which the petitioner objected to the resumption of the meeting having regard to the fact that the Mayor had ruled that he was adjourning the meeting. Another member, K. R. Abbiah also pointed out that there was no harm in adjourning the meeting for the present and that in spite of this, if the house wanted to continue, he protested that it would be illegal and said that he would not participate in the meeting and left the house followed by Shri M. Swamy and N. Ramaswamy. The petitioner also left after stating that it was wrong to continue the meeting which would be illegal and that it was for the court and the Government to decide whether the Mayor had done any wrong.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER only 14 members remained and transacted the business specified in the notice after which Shri Sardar Singh, Chairman, Standing Committee, sought for and obtained the permission of the House to move an additional subject of the standing Committee under section 88 (k) of the Act to elect another member in place of the Mayor to the Standing Committee. The 4th respondent was thereafter proposed and seconded and was elected as a member of the Standing Committee the election of
