Back
1968 Supreme(MP) 90
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and G. P. Singh, J.
BALBHADRA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 132 Of 1968
Decided On : 05/04/1968
K.A.Chitale, K.K.DUBEY, P.C.PATHAK, R.K.Tankha, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Headnote:(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S.332 (1) - power of review scope of-administrative order may be reviewed-order dissolving a Municipality reviewed-power of review not controlled by section 328.
The power of review conferred on the State Government by Section 332 (I) of the Municipalities Act is not in any way qualified or limited or controlled by any thing that is contained in section 328 or in any other provision of the Act. There is nothing in section 332 to show that under that provision only quasi-judicial orders can be reviewed and not an administrative or an executive order. AIR 1963 SC 395 referred to. [Para 6
(2) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.378 (6) - dissolution of a Municipal Council-consequences-Council may be restored.
On the dissolution of a Council, certain consequences follow but these consequences are not such as to make the restoration of the Council an impossibility. When the order of the Government from which the statutory consequences flow is set aside, then the statutory consequences also cease. 1968 JLJ 1 referred to. [Para 7
(3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - Ss.328 and 332 - dissolution of a Council-Government has power to review such order.
The power of review conferred on the State Government under section 332 is wide enough to enable it to review an order passed under section 328. [Para 8
(4) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.332 (1) - parties interested Councillors non• seated on dissolution-not parties interested to support the order of dissolution-need not be noticed if the dissolution is to be set aside in review.
(5) Review-notice to parties interested-who are such parties.
Under section 332 (]) no order can be reviewed unless notice has been given to the parties interested. The expression "parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order", clearly means those parties who are interested in the maintenance of the order sought to be reviewed. No notice was given to any party interested as there was no such party.
It. stands to reason to think that the Councillors who were required to vacate their offices on dissolution were interested in seeing that the order of dissolution is set aside and they were not parties interested in supporting the order which was reviewed, (Para 8
(6) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.332 - grounds for review power of the State Government-scope of.
Under section 332, the State Governments power to review does not depend upon the existence of any specific ground or grounds. It is open to the Government to review an order in the exercise of its power under section 332, if it thinks that the order is not reasonable or proper or legal. 1958 JLJ 589=ILR 1958 MP 13 followed. [Para 10
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case, who was elected as a Councillor of the Municipal council, Rewa, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the State government on 23rd March 1968 rescinding its earlier order dated 4th January 1968 dissolving the Municipal Council.
( 2 ) ON 5th May 1967 the Government Issued a notice to the Municipal Council, rewa, under Section 328 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking it to show cause why it should not be dissolved on account of its certain acts of commission and omission stated in the charges enumerated in the notice. The Council gave its explanation. After considering the explanation furnished by the Council in reply to the notice, the government passed an order under Section 328 (1) of the Act dissolving the council. The operative portions of that order ran thus:
"the State Government after carefully considering the explanation furnished by the Council in regard to the above charges is of opinion that the Council has failed to meet the charges satisfactorily. The State government accordingly, find that all the charges excepting charge No. 3 described above have been established. The State Government, are, therefore, satisfied that the Council has exceeded and abused its powers to a grave extent and that it is not competent to perform the duties imposed by or under the Madhya pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No. 37 of 1961 ). The State Government, therefore, hereby order that the Municipal council, Rewa in Rewa district be dissolved under Sub-section (1) of section 328 of the said Act and that a fresh election be held. "
( 3 ) IT appears that subsequently the respondent No. 4 Sheikh Habib Monsur, former President of the Municipal Council, and two others moved the State government for a review under Section 332 of the Act of the order dated 4th january 1968 dissolving the Municipal Council. The Government then reviewed the order dated 4th January 1968 rescinding it. The order passed by the State government on review said:
"whereas Shri Sheikh Habib and two others have filed an application dated 8th January 1968 requesting the State Government for the review of the orders passed by the State Government under Section 328 of the madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No. 37 of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published under this Department notification No. 14-A-XVIII-Urban-II 68 dated the 4th January, 1968 for the dissolution of the Municipal Council, Rewa: and whereas, it is found that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry was not properly conducted inasmuch as (i) The report of enquiry is based on records and documents made available by the Municipal Council which have not been exhibited and proved by witnesses; (ii) witnesses whose evidence was material were not summoned and examined for accounting for the allegations; now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 332 of the said Act, the State Government hereby: (i) reverses the dissolution of Rewa, Municipal Council ordered on the 4th January, 1968; (ii) restores the status quo prevailing on 3rd January, 1968, and (iii) remands back the case for enquiry according to law and procedure. 2. As none appeared in the dock before the enquiry officer for accounting for and proving the allegations, it cannot be determined at this stage of review as to who are the parties interested in support of order of dissolution and as such the question of giving notices to such parties for appearance and being heard does not arise. "
( 4 ) BEFORE stating the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of Sections 328 and 332 of the Act. Section 328 (1) is in the following terms: "328. Power to dissolve or supersede Council.- (1) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise it appears to the State Government that- (a) the Council is not competent to perform, or persistently makes
