1985 Supreme(Bom) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J., V.A. Mohta S.W. Puranik, JJ.
Vidarbha Nagarpalika Parishad others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Governor of the State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
AND
Municipal Council, Murtizapur, through its President.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
AND
Ballarpur Municipal Council, through its President.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
AND
Muncipal Council, Arvi, through its President.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharshtra another.... Respondents.
AND
Municipal Council Mangrulpir.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another..... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 512 of 1981 with Writ Petition Nos. 824, 825, 826 833 of 1984, decided on 22-7-1985.
Advocates appeared :
C.G. Madkholkar and Usha Purohit, for petitioners.
B.P. Jaiswal and V.V. Naik, A.G.P., for respondents.

Headnote:

The Court held that the elected Councillors have a right to continue in office until general elections are held and the special meeting to elect the President is convened. This right, of course, is subject to the power that may be exercised by the State Government under section 48-A of the Act. The Court further held that section 48-A of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is perfectly valid.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the validity of section 48-A of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act No. XL of 1965), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in (Mohamed Maqbool v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1982 Mh.L.J. 417. Section 48-A of the Act reads as follows :--- " 48-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 or any other provisions of this Act, where the term of office of five years of the Councillors of any Council has expired and the State Government is of opinion that in the changed circumstances the continuance of such Councillors in office is not necessary or expedient, the State Government may, at any time, even during the period the term stands extended under sub-section (1) or (8) of section 40, by order, published in the Official Gazette, direct that- (a) all Councillors of the Council (including the president and the Vice-President) shall, as from the date specified in the order, cease to hold and shall vacate their offices as Councillors or otherwise; and (b) the person appointed by the State Government, from time to time, shall be the Administrator to manage the affairs of the Council, during the period from the said date upto the day proceeding the date on which the first meeting of the reconstituted Council after the general election is held, where there is a quorum. Such general election shall be held within a period of one year, from the date of publication of the order issued under this sub-section in the Official Gazette. Provided that this period of one year may be extended, from time to time, by the State Government, in exceptional circumstances to a period not exceeding two and half years in the aggregate, by notification in the Official Gazette, for reasons, which shall be stated in the notification. (2) During the said period, all the powers and duties of the Council and its various authorities under this Act or any other law for the time being in force shall be exercised and performed by the Administrator. (3) The Administrator may delegate any of his powers and duties to any officer for the time being serving under the Council. (4) The Administrator shall receive such remuneration from the municipal fund, as the State Government may, from time to time, by general or special order, determine."

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the elected Councillors have a right to continue in office until general elections are held and the special meeting to elect the President is convened. This right, of course, is subject to the power that may be exercised by the State Government under section 48-A of the Act. The Court further held that section 48-A of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is perfectly valid.

Issues: 1. Whether the elected Councillors have a right to continue in office until general elections are held? 2. Whether section 48-A of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act No. XL of 1965) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the elected Councillors have a right to continue in office until general elections are held and the special meeting to elect the President is convened. This right, of course, is subject to the power that may be exercised by the State Government under section 48-A of the Act. 2. The Court further held that section 48-A of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is perfectly valid.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.