SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Pat) 66

PATNA HIGH COURT
U.N.Sinha, H.Mahapatra and A.B.N.Sinha JJ.
Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal
Versus
A.K.Sinha
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 492 of 1964 ;
Decided On : MAY 14, 1965

The Commissioners at a meeting have the competency to authorize the expenditure of any sum provided in the budget estimates and to delegate such authority to a particular person or committee.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL LAW - BIHAR AND ORISSA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1922 - SECTION 75 - AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURE - RESOLUTION PASSED BY COMMISSIONERS AT SPECIAL MEETING - VALIDITY - SCOPE OF SECTION 75 - DELEGATION OF POWERS TO FINANCE COMMITTEE - AUTHORIZATION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN TO MAKE PAYMENTS AND SIGN CHEQUES - VALIDITY - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The Chairman of the Arrah Municipality challenged the resolution passed in a special meeting of the Commissioner of that Municipality, which authorized the Finance Committee to pass orders for all payments to be made on behalf of the Municipality and authorized the Vice-Chairman to make all payments on behalf of the Finance Committee and sign cheques.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the resolution was passed under Section 75 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, which authorizes the Commissioners at a meeting to authorize the expenditure of any sum provided in the budget estimates. The Court further held that the resolution was not invalid even though it authorized the Finance Committee and the Vice-Chairman to incur expenditure and make payments, as the Commissioners had the competency to do so at a meeting.

Issues: 1. Whether the resolution passed by the Commissioners at a special meeting was valid. 2. Whether the Commissioners could authorize the Finance Committee and the Vice-Chairman to incur expenditure and make payments. 3. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to the present case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the resolution was passed under Section 75 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, which authorizes the Commissioners at a meeting to authorize the expenditure of any sum provided in the budget estimates. 2. The Court further held that the resolution was not invalid even though it authorized the Finance Committee and the Vice-Chairman to incur expenditure and make payments, as the Commissioners had the competency to do so at a meeting. 3. The Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the present case as there were parties who were not parties to the previous case.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application challenging the resolution passed by the Commissioners at a special meeting.

Judgment

Mahapatra, J.

1. The Chairman of the Arrah Municipality has sought, by this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash by a writ in the nature of certiorari, the proceedings of and the resolution passed in the special meeting of the Commissioner of that Municipality held on the 8th February 1964, and a for direction to the respondents, the Commissioners, restraining them from giving effect to that resolution. The impugned resolution reads as follows :

"Whereas Sri Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal, Chairman who has been authorised under Section 76 (it should be 75) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act is not acting impartially in making various legal payments to contractors and others according to budget, it is resolved that in supersession of the resolution passed on the subject in the meeting held on 31-3-1983, the Finance Committee be authorised to pass orders for all payments to be made on behalf of the Municipality and that the Vice Chairman be authorised to make all payments on behalf of the Finance Committee and sign cheques, etc.

Resolved further that under Sec. 49 Clause (3), (it should be Clause 4), the Board delegated all its powers and functions pertaining to Finance to Finance Committee and that the decision of the Committee shall be final."

This resolution was passed by sixteen members present voting for it and fourteen against it. A point of order was raised in respect of the resolution which was ruled out. The meeting where the resolution was passed was a special meeting under Sec. 44 (2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, held on 8th February 1964 at 3 p. m. in the municipal office. Annexure A to the petition is a notice convening that meeting, which stated :

"Whereas the Chairman, Arrah Municipality has failed to call a Special Meeting on our requisition under Sec. 44 (1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act within fifteen days from 24-8-63 (the date appears to be misprint), we the requisitionists hereby call the Special Meeting of the Board under Sec. 44 (2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act on Saturday the 8th February 1964 at 3 p. m. in the Municipal Office to consider the following Resolution."

The resolution was quoted in that notice, which is in the form in which it was passed, which I have reproduced above. Five Commissioners had given first, the requisition to the Chairman and then they gave the notice themselves for the special meeting.

2. The resolution of the 31st March 1983 of the meeting of the Commissioners in supersession of which the impugned resolution was passed has not been produced by the petitioner, nor called for from the respondents. Both sides proceeded on the basis that that resolution was under Section 75 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (which shall be referred hereafter as the Act). That section is as follows :

"75. Disbursement of expenditure sanctioned in budget estimates--(1) After the budget estimates of the municipality for the year have been sanctioned under Section 73, the Commissioners at a meeting may, subject to the prescribed restrictions from time to time, by a general or special resolution, authorise the expenditure of any sum provided in such estimates, or any part of such sum, for the purpose to which it has been assigned in such estimates, 2. No order for the payment of money from the municipal fund shall issue unless the expenditure thereof has been authorised by the Commissioners so provided in Sub-section (1)."

Under Sub-section (1), the Commissioners at a meeting either by a general or special resolution, have to authorize the expenditure of the money provided in the estimates of the annual budget before that can be spent. The provision does not speak of any particular person to be so authorised to incur the expenditure. It imposes a legal requisition over the Commissioners again to give their thoughts, at a meeting in respect of any particular item or items of the budget estimates, when the occasion arises for incurring expenditur











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top