Back
1984 Supreme(MP) 754
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. L. OZA, B. M. LAL
GIRISHKUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 2285 Of 1984
Decided On : 11/22/1984
M.C.NIBLANI, M.V.TAMSKAR, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Headnote:(1) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P.)-Ss. 422-A, 38, 23 & 20-dissolution of Corporation-section 422-A (b) when attracted-what is the date immediately within a period of twelve months as provided under sections 23 and 38-such period commences from the date of the first meeting after the general election in the next year.
The election of the Corporation was held on 10-2-1983 and the names of elected councillors were published on 5-3-1983. Names of selected councillors were notified on 16-3-1983 and the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was notified on 13-4-1983. The first general meeting was held on 26-3-1983 under section 28 for electing Mayor and Deputy Mayor, ten members of the standing committee and its chairman and constitution of special committee. These elections were made on the same date. It was contended by the petitioner that under sections 23 and 38 of the Act, the term of office of these elected persons and bodies had expired on 25-3-1984. It was also contended by the petitioner that in pursuance of a notice issued by the Revenue Commissioner on 31- 3-1984 a meeting was held and all the above named posts and bodies were elected. It was contended that this meeting was not in accordance with law hence it was illegal and the Corporation stood dissolved under section 422-A.
Held: Sub-section (2) of section 20 provides that the term of the office of the councillors elected or selected commences from, the date appointed for the first General Meeting after such election. This shows that elections may have taken place earlier but the tenure of office commences from the date of first general meeting.
Section 28 of the Act clearly shows that the meeting for election of Mayor, Deputy Mayor or the standing committee should be called by the Revenue Commissioner. Therefore the meeting held on 31-3-1984 convened on notice from Revenue Commissioner was in accordance with law and the election held therein were legal. [Para 17
Section 23 provides the tenure of the Mayor to be one year, which means a period of twelve months commencing from the date of first meeting after the general election in the next year.
It is clear that after general election in 1983 the first general meeting to elect Mayor and Deputy Mayor was held on 26-3-1983 and the next year therefore commences from 23-3-1984. Thus the elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayor were held in the meeting of 31-3-1984 which was the first meeting in the year commencing from 26-3-1984. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that for sub-section (2) of section 422-A became operative. The same is the case with elections under section 38 of the Act. [Paras 18 & 20
Clauses (ii) and (iii) clearly provide that section 422-A is only attracted when a Corporation fails to elect a Mayor or Deputy Mayor as required under section 23 or fails to elect a Standing Committee or any other committee all contemplated under section 38, then alone this section becomes operative. 1968 JLJ 125, 1968 JLJ 1100, 1971 JLJ 361 and 1983 JLJ 566 discussed. [Paras 22 & 25
(2) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P)-S. 241 (4)-order to the detriment of the suspended employee cannot be passed without hearing him nature of proceedings-it is quasi-judicial.
(3) Natural Justice-rules of-provisions for hearing not made in the statute-even then the rule should be observed.
The State Government suspended the order of suspension passed against the employee petitioner. The Corporation on receiving the communication of the order of the State Government, made a representation under sub-section (3) of section 421. The State Government after hearing the Corporation's representative and without hearing the employee petitioner withdrew its earlier order under sub-section (4) of section 421. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the scheme of section 421 did not contemplate such a hearing.
Held: The State Government could not modify its earlier order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee petitioner. AIR 1976 SC 1785 & 1973 JLJ 922 relied on. [Para 28
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the Standing Committee and its Chairman and Members and the Consultative Committees elected on 31-3-1984 to be invalid and also for a declaration that the Municipal Corporation of Bhopal (Respondent 3) stands automatically dissolved on 26-3-1984. It is also sought that therefore the order of suspension passed against the petitioner by resolution of the Standing Committee, dated 24-7-1984, be also quashed as it is without any authority.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had passed his M. B. B. S. Examination from Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, in the year 1968 and in the year 1975 the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, advertised the post of Medical Officer in the Corporation and the petitioner was appointed on 31-3-1975. It is alleged by the petitioner that although the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, was constituted in the year 1967 but till 1983 there were no elections and ultimately on a petition filed in this Court a direction was issued by this Court for holding elections and it is alleged that ultimately the elections were held on 10th Feb 1983 and the names of the elected councillors were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 5-3-1983. It is also alleged that the names of selected Corporators (Councillors) were notified in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 16-3-1983 and the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was notified in the Gazette on 30-4-1983. It is alleged that the first general meeting of the Corporation after election and selection of the councillors was held on 26-3-1983 under S. 28 of the Municipal Corporation Act for electing a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor, ten members of the Standing Committee of the Corporation and its Chairman and the constitution of Special Committees.
( 3 ) IT is also alleged by the petitioner that in this meeting dated 26-3-1983 Dr. R. K. Bisaria was elected as a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation and Shri Habib Ali was elected as a Deputy Mayor. Shri Ashok Kumar Bhawa was elected as Chairman of the Standing Committee along with nine members and seven Consultative Committees also were constituted.
( 4 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that under S. 23 of the Municipal Corporation Act the term of the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor is one year from the date of first meeting after the general election and this term of one year commencing from 26-3-1983 comes to an end on 25-3-1984. The term of the Standing Committee and the Chairman of the Standing Committee is also one year and it therefore also comes to an end along with Mayor and Deputy Mayor under S. 38 of the Municipal Corporation Act. Similar is also the situation about Consultative Committees. According to the petitioner, therefore, on 25-3-1984 the term of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Standing Committee and all other committees expired.
( 5 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that on 16-3-1984 the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal issued a notice in accordance with the rules framed under S. 23 of the Municipal Corporation Act notifying that the election of Mayor, Deputy Mayor, constitution of Standing Committee, its Chairman, and constitution of the special committees and their members shall be held in a meeting to be held on 25-3-1984. It is alleged that during the period between 16-3-1984 and 25-3-1984 the Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, issued a notice purporting to be under S. 28 of the Municipal Corporation Act notifying that the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, Standing Committee, its Chairman and other Committees and their members shall be held on 31-3-1984.
( 6 ) IT is alleged that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Mayor, a meeting was to be held on 25-3-1984 but that could not be held and the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor could not be held on 25-3-1984 as was expected in accordance with the notice issued by the Mayor of the Corporation but according to the pe
