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

1952 Supreme(Mad) 285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Subba Rao.
R. Pushpam
Versus
The State of Madras represented by the Secretary, Local Administration Department, Fort St. George, Madras
Writ Petition No. 648 of 1952.
Decided On : 06 October 1952

Advocates:
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and Messrs. Row and Reddy for Petitioners.
The Government Pleader (P. Satyanarayana Raju) for the State.

Provisions of section 35-B of Municipalities Act Bars High Court’s power to issue writs.

Headnote:Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920-Section 43 -Consolation with Municipal Council is a must for allotment of reserved seat.

Order.-

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorori to call for the records and quash the order, dated 29th July, 1952, of the the first respondent, the State of Madras. The first petitioner is the Secretary of the Progressive Women’s Association, Aruppukkottai; the second petitioner is a Municipal Councillor of the Arupukkottai municipality. The elections to the said council are now in progress. Under the programme of elections issued by the second respondent Commissioner of the municipality, the last date to file nominations is the 6th and 8th September, 1952 and the date of the polling is fixed on the 6th October, 1952. The municipality is divided into 24 wards with 28 councillors; one reserved seat for women is allotted to Ward’ No. 2 and another to Ward No. 12.. The said allotment was made by the order of the Government, dated 29th July, 1952. The petitioners seek to get that order quashed for the reasons inlet’ alia that it is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the Government and also on the ground that the Government did not comply with the provisions of the District Municipalities Act in issuing the said order.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government did not comply with the provisions of section 43 of the District Municipalities Act may be taken up first. Section 43 reads:

“For the purposes of election of councillors to a municipal council, the State Government after consulting the municipal council, may, by notification

(a) divide the municipality into wards;

(b) determine the wards in which the seats, if any, reserved under sub-section (3) of section 7 shall be set apart; and

(c) declare for whom such seats are reserved”.

Under section 7(3) the local Government may in their discretion by notification reserve seats for women and determine the number of such seats. The Government accordingly determined to give two seats for women and allotted the said reserved seats to Wards Nos. 2 and 12. Under section 43 such allotment of the reserved seats can only be made after consulting the municipal council. The statutory condition of consulting was conceived in public interests and expressed in clear terms. It is therefore the duty of this Court to ensure that there is a full and fair compliance with the statutory condition. The question therefore is whether the Government consulted the municipal council before determining the wards in which the said seats were set apart. This turns upon the construction of the words “after consulting” in the section. The word “consult” is so familiar that it often eludes the grasp of easy and exact definition. In the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Ayyar it is stated as follows:

“Consultations always require two persons at least; deliberations may be carried on either with a man’s self or with numbers; an individual may consult with one or many; assemblies commonly deliberate; advice and information are given and received in consultations; doubts, difficulties, and objections are started and removed in deliberations. Those who have to co-operate must frequently consult together; those who have serious measures to decide upon must coolly deliberate”.

The word “consult” was subject of a judicial scrutiny in Fletcher v. Minister of Town Planning1. The question arose in connection with an application taken out for quashing the order made by the Minister for Town and Country Planning. The Minister designated an area of land as the site of a proposed new Town. It was contended that the requirements of the New Towns Act, 1946, had not been complied with in relation to the making of the order, in that there was no “consultation” within the meaning of section 1(i) of the Act between the Alinister and the local authorities before the making of the order designating the area of land in question as the site of the proposed new town. On the facts the learned Judge held that there was the requisite consultation, but in dea











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