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

2013 Supreme(Pat) 1371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
Santosh Kumar S/o Sri Rajendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19872 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nityanand Mishra
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar
For the Corporation : Mr. Shubhankar Sharma

Arbitrary exercise of power by a public authority and the duty to seek approval as per the decision of the Apex Court.

Headnote:

Arbitrary Exercise of Power - Municipal Corporation Panel Lawyers - The court quashed the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to cancel the panel of lawyers representing the Corporation and appoint someone else, citing arbitrariness and failure to seek approval as per the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Others v. State of U.P. & Others (1991) 1 SCC 212.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, was empanelled to represent a Municipal Corporation but the panel was later cancelled by the Municipal Commissioner, who appointed someone else to represent the Corporation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the action of the Municipal Commissioner to be arbitrary and quashed the decision to cancel the panel and appoint another lawyer.

Issues: Arbitrary exercise of power by the Municipal Commissioner, failure to seek approval for the panel of lawyers, and appointment of a new lawyer to represent the Corporation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Municipal Commissioner's action was deemed arbitrary and in violation of the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Others v. State of U.P. & Others (1991) 1 SCC 212.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to cancel the panel of lawyers and appoint another lawyer was quashed.

ORDER :

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

The petitioner is a practicing Advocate practicing in the High Court. He had been in the panel of Advocates representing Ara Municipal Corporation.

2. It appears that in the meeting of the General Body of the Corporation on 31.10.2012, a decision was taken to scrap the appointment of empanelled lawyers both for Civil Courts and the High Court. Mayor/Chief Counsel or was authorised to take decision with regard to formation of new panel and/or selection of new Advocates to represent the Corporation both at Civil Courts and at High Court. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 08.11.2012 and petitioner applied for being empanelled for representing the Corporation before this Court. Several others also made application. On 05.03.2013, they were invited for interview and then petitioner and some others were, accordingly, empanelled as panel lawyers. Petitioner’s grievance is that no sooner the new Town Commissioner joined on 10.09.2013, the impugned Annexure 3 was issued by which, on the ground that the panel so made pursuant to advertisement dated 08.11.2012 had not yet been approved by the Empowered Standing Committee or the Corporation, as such, the panel was being cancelled. In effect, new panel now had to be made. This was followed by impugned Annexure 5 dated 14.09.2013 appointing respondent No 5 to represent the Corporation in the meantime before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a total arbitrary exercise of power. If we even accept, for the sake of argument, that the matter had not been placed for consideration of the Empowered Standing Committee of the Corporation then it was the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to place it for its approval but having failed to place it for approval, he cannot cancel it. What he virtually is doing is because he failed to place it for approval and thus defaulted, for his default he is penalizing the petitioner. It is further pointed that if we look to Annexure 4, the Resolution of the Empowered Standing Committee dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure 4). It clearly shows that the Empowered Standing Committee had considered the panel and recommended addition of names therein without disapproving the panel. Thus, it is submitted that on both counts, the action of the Municipal Commissioner in cancelling the panel and appointing someone else to work is wholly arbitrary.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation and respondent No 5 himself, in my view, one has to first take note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Others v. State of U.P. & Others since reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212. There the Apex Court clearly held that in the spoil system that operates in respect of such discretionary appointments, Article 14 cannot be lost sight of. Thus, one has to see whether the action of the Municipal Commissioner is valid or not Whether it is arbitrary or not?

5. From the facts noted above, it would be apparent that the only ground on which the panel has been cancelled is that panel was not approved by the Empowered Standing Committee. The fact is that there has been no disapproval in any manner. Who had to seek the approval' It was the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to have placed the matter for approval. He failed. He committed a default but he is making others suffered for his default. That cannot be permitted. I can only refer to what Chief Justice Chagla said almost sixty years back in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1954 Bom 232 :

“But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under sub-section (2) of S 24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own defau







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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top