The Court held that a show-cause notice for the supersession of a Corporation can only be issued if the charges against the Corporation fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Act.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Supersession - Show-cause notice - Charges against Corporation - Whether charges fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Held, charges do not fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Act - Show-cause notice quashed.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Councillors of the Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur, challenged a show-cause notice issued by the State Government under section 452 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (the Act), proposing to supersede the Corporation. The notice alleged various irregularities and defaults on the part of the Corporation, including irregularities in the purchase of steel, failure to take proper action against erring officials, and abuse of power in granting concessions in octroi tax.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the charges against the Corporation did not fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Act. The Court observed that the irregularities in the purchase of steel were committed by the then Commissioner and could not be imputed to the Corporation. The Court also held that the Corporation's decision not to take strict action against erring officials and to grant concessions in octroi tax did not amount to a default in the performance of its duties or an abuse of power. The Court further held that the show-cause notice was issued in undue haste and without proper application of mind.
Issues: Whether the charges against the Corporation fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the charges against the Corporation did not fall within the purview of section 452(1) of the Act because: * The irregularities in the purchase of steel were committed by the then Commissioner and could not be imputed to the Corporation. * The Corporation's decision not to take strict action against erring officials and to grant concessions in octroi tax did not amount to a default in the performance of its duties or an abuse of power. The Court further held that the show-cause notice was issued in undue haste and without proper application of mind.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the show-cause notice and allowed the petition with costs.

JUDGMENT - P.G. PALSHIKAR, J.:---The petitioners are the Councillors of the Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur, which was Constituted on 1st May, 1964 under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There are about 65 elected Councillors and the last elections were held on 8th June, 1975. Under the Act the tenure of the office of Councillors is five years. The term of these Councillors commenced from 23rd June, 1975 and was to come to an end on 22nd June, 1980. However, by a notification issued by State Government on 20th May, 1980 the term of office of the elected Councillors was extended till 30th November, 1980. So, the term of office of the present Councillors was to expire on 30th November, 1980.

2. But before the extended term could expire, on 12th August, 1980 a notice was served upon the 2nd respondent-Corporation asking it to show cause why the corporation should not be superseded and why the Administrator be not appointed. This notice was issued under section 452 of the Act which reads as under :

"452(1) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise it appears to the State Government that the Corporation is not competent to perform or pesistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed upon 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 the Corporation an opportunity to show cause why such order should not be made, by an order published, with the reasons therefore, in the Official Gazette, direct that the Corporation shall be superseded for a period to be specified in the order. Such period may be longer than the term for which the Councillors of the Corporation would have held office under section 6, if the Corporation had not been superseded under this section.

(2) When an order is made under sub-section (1), the following consequences shall ensure :---

(a) all the councillors shall, as from the date of the order of supersession, vacate their office as such councillors;

(b) if the State Government so directs in the order, the members of the Transport Committee shall, as from the said date, vacate their offices as such members;

(c) all powers and duties of the Corporation, the Standing Committee and, if the State Government has directed that the members of the Transport Committee shall vacate office, the Transport Committee under this Act or under any other law for the time being force shall, during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government from time to time appoints in this behalf;

(d) all property vested in the corporation shall, during the period of supersession, vest in the Government;

(e) the person or persons appointed under Clause (c) may delegate his or their powers and duties to an individual or to a committee or sub-committee.

(3) The State Government may from time to time after inquiry made, by an order published in the Official Gazettee, direct that the period of supersession with all the consequences aforesaid shall be continued until such date as is specified in the order.

(4) The Corporation shall be re-established on the expiration of the period specified in the order of supersession under sub-section (1) as continued from time to time by order under sub-section (3) by the election of Councillors at general ward elections held in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Provided that the person or persons appointed under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) shall continue to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Corporation, the Standing Committee and, as the case may be, the Transport Committee until the first meeting of the Corporation Constituted by the election of Councillors as aforesaid shall have been held."

Under sub-section (1) of section 452 the State Government is empowered to supersede the Corporation if it appears to the State Government that the Corpor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document