Back
1958 Supreme(MP) 122
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. R. Newaskar and T. C. Shrivastava, JJ.
MAURSINHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Petn. Case 82 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/26/1958
HOMI DAJI, K.A.Chitale, P.R.SHARMA, R.S.Vaidya
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - powers under-nature and extent of - High Court acts in supervisory capacity-cannot substitute its own views for those of interior tribunals.
The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution acts in supervisory capacity. It does not review or re-weigh the material on which the conclusions of the administrative authority or tribunal is based. All that it can do is to demolish the order which, according to its view, is without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous. It cannot substitute its own view for that of the inferior tribunal, AIR 1954 SC 440, followed; AIR 1952 SC 192, referred to. [Para 39]
(2) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M.B) - S. 208(1) and Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Supersession of Municipality-words "in the opinion of" do not leave matter entirely at the will of Government -interference under Article 226.
(3) Words & Phrares-phrase 'in the opinion of'-import of.
The words "in the opinion of" in the context in which they are used in section 208 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, mean not purely subjective determination by the Government but have a reference to the tentative conclusions reached at an early stage with regard to all or any of the objective matters referred to in the section. They do not leave the matter entirely at the subjective will of the Government. The High Court can interfere with an order of supersession of a Municipality where there is a failure to comply with the legal requirements or principles of natural justice are not followed or there is an error apparent on the face of the record. AIR 1953 Raj. 149 and AIR 1958 SC 208, referred to. [Para 31]
(4) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M. B.) - S. 208(1) - acts and defaults of Municipality-meaning of.
Per V. R. Newaskar, J. - Under section 208 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, the term "Municipality" in the context means the authority known as 'Municipal Council'. The incompetency referred to in section 208(1) of the M.B. Municipalities Act must be that of the Municipality, and not of any other lesser authority. The defaults, abuses of excesses of powers must also have been committed by the Municipality, and not by any lesser authority. Any errors committed by the President and the Standing Committee in the discharge of their functions cannot be said to be errors of the Municipal Councilor Municipality and cannot be taken into account. [Paras 43, 44 and 47]
Per T.C. Shrivastava, J.- The scheme of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act recognises the Municipality alone as a body corporate. The division of functions between the Municipal Council on the one hand and other authories like the Standing Committee or the President on the other, is only an internal matter. The ultimate responsibility for their acts must rest with the Council, otherwise, the incompetency, persistent defaults, or abuses of powers by the subordinate bodies will be without remedy and the Council can escape all consequences. [Para 85]
(5) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M.B.) - Ss. 53(2) and 197(2) – section 197(2) not controlled by section 53(2) - applicability of section 53(2).
In the absence of any limiting words in section 197 (2) of the M. B. Municipalities Act it cannot be said that the power of compromise is restricted and previous Government sanction is necessary under section 53 (2) of the Act. But there may be a case of compromise where an admittedly municipal land is sought to be sold to other party by way of compromise. In such a case section 53 (2) will apply and prior sanction of Government will be necessary. [Para 56]
(6) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M. B.) - S. 208(1) and Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Order of supersession based on several charges-majority of charges unrelated to Municipal Council - order is bad as a whole.
Per V. R. Newaskar, J.-An order of supersession of a Municipality under section 203(1) of the M.B. Municipalities Act, if based on several charges, majority of which are unrelated to the Municipal Council, is bad as a whole, AIR 1954 SC 179, relied on. [Para 80]
(7) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M.B) - S. 208 (1) -charges must be complete in themselves.
Per T.C. Shrivastava, J -The charges made under section 208 (1) of the M. B. Municipalities Act for taking an action under that section should be complete in themselves so as to give precise notice to the Municipality of every fact that is sought to be used against it. [Para 86]
(8) Practice-order-validity of -only reasons slated to be considered.
Per T.C. Shrivastava, J.- When the law requires reasons to be stated for a particular conclusion it is only those reasons which have to be considered in deciding the validity of the order. [Para 88]
(9) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M.B.) - S. 208(1) and Constitution of India - Art. 226 - order of supersession of Municipality-want of proper application of mind by Government - order is bad.
Where a Municipality was superseded under section 208(1) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act on several charges, and the order was couched in a manner as if it were a charge-sheet, and the reasons for ultimate conclusions were treated as synonymous with grounds or charges and practically quoted the section so far as defaults, excesses or abuses, as alleged, were concerned showing want of proper application of mind or absence of understanding regarding true singnificance of the provision; there was an error apparent on the fact of the record and, therefore, the order of supersession could not be sustained. [Para 83]
(10) Municipalities Act, 1954 (M.B.) - Ss. 53(3)(b), 63(1) and 60(3) - contract entered into involving expenditure not covered by budget grant- procedure to be followed.
Per V. R. Newaskar, J. - Where contracts have to be entered into involving expenditure not covered by budget grant a resolution of the Council in its general meeting authorising the same ought to be passed. Then as provided in section 60(3) of the M.B. Municipalties Act there should be a special resolution modifying the supplemental or revised budget. [Para 76]
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other kind of writ, direction or order against the State of Madhya Pradesh for securing the quashing of the order dated 7-121957 passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh superseding the Municipality of Ujjain in purported exercise of its powers under Section 208 of the Madhya bharat Municipalities Act, 1954.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be an elected President of the aforesaid Municipality and has submitted this petition both as a duly elected member and the President of the Municipality thus superseded.
( 3 ) THE action of supersession taken by the Government was the out-come of the following circumstances: ( 4 ) SOME time prior to June 1957 Government received complaints regarding the working of the said Municipality. In order to get itself informed about me propriety of these complaints and to know the truth about the matter the Government appointed the then Inspector General of Municipalities Mr. Sawant on 24-6-1957 to enquire into the said complaints and report. The Inquiry Officer Mr. Sawant on 6-7-1957 sent three different questionnaires, one to the Standing, Committee, the second to the President and the third to the municipal Council asking them to render explanations regarding the acts attributed to each or them making it clear that the same might not he taken as charge-sheets. Explanation was rendered, according to the petitioner, by the President and the Standing Committee. The Inspector General of Municipalities then made some inquiry. Petitioner's allegation is that the said inquiry was conducted ex parte and with the help and instigation of some of the councillors who were bent on dislocating the Municipal administration or displacing the group in power. After the Inquiry Officer had left ujjain the Government on 6-9-1957 returned, the budget of the Municipality for the year 1957-58, sent to it for sanction, requiring the Municipality to re-discuss the same. The petitioner replied on 15-11-1957 with a view to clarify its stand upon the matter and taking the position that act of passing the budget was lawful and not contrary to rules and requested the Government to let him know in what particular the act was unlawful and contravened which provision of the Act or the Rules. Before this however on 15-10-1957 Government communicated by means of a letter to the President and through him to the Ujjain Municipality containing seven different charges and called for an explanation thereof. These charges were said to indicate that the said Municipality had persistently made defaults in the performance of duties imposed upon it by or under the madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, and exceeded or abused its powers.
( 5 ) THESE seven charges being the principal subject-matter of this petition it will be convenient to set them out here briefly: 1. The budget for the year 1957-58 was passed contrary to the Rules. 2. Government had sanctioned loan to the Municipality in connection with the Sinhastha fair of 1957. The Municipal Council in its meeting dated 22-4-1957 resolved not to accept that loan after having made a resolution earlier making a demand therefor; secondly after this resolution of 22-4-1957 the Council on 31-5-1957 passed a resolution accepting the loan. This latter act was contrary to Section 26 of the Act. 3. The Municipal Council passed a resolution for purchase of a jeep out of Municipal fund in the absence of provision therefor in the budget. This was contrary to Section 63 of the Act, 4. The President obtained leave as regards the performance of duty by him of acting as Chairman of the Standing Committee although he continued to act as the President. The Standing Committee elected Mr. Kureshi as Chairman of the Standing Committee. This was contrary to what Section 32 of the Act had meant to lay down. 5. No Government sanction was obtained for compromising
