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

1987 Supreme(MP) 103

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
N. D. OJHA, R. C. SHRIVASTAVA
OM PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, GUNA - Respondents
M. P. 72 Of 1987
Decided On : 03/11/1987

Advocates Appeared:
ARVIND DUDAWAT, R.D.Jain

Headnote:(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.)-S.40 (1) (as amended in 1982)d`resignation tendered to prescribed authority instead President-tendering- no‘ invalid-provision is directory and not mandatory.

       Even though sub-section (1) of section 40 of the Act contemplates the resignation to be tendered by the councillor to the President, it does not prescribe the consequence of the letter of resignation not being tendered to the President, but being tendered directly to the prescribed authority who has been authorised to accept the resignation. Apparently, the President, under sub-section (1) of section 40 of the Act is only to act like a conduit pipe. The ultimate authority of acting upon the letter of resignation vests in the prescribed authority. In this view of the matter, in so far as section 40 (1) of the Act contemplates that the letter of resignation is to be tendered by the councillor to the President is concerned it is only directory and not mandatory. It is apparently for convenience. [Para 5]

       (2) Constitution of India-Art. 226-writ petition under-genuineness or otherwise of resignation-cannot be decided. [Para 7]

N. D. OJHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Order shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 123/87 between the same parties.

( 2 ) OMPRAKASH who is the petitioner in these two writ petitions, was the President of the Municipal Council, Ashok Nagar, District Guna. This Council had 24 members. 13 of the members tendered their resignations, to the Collector Guna. These resignations were accepted by the Collector and casual vacancy caused on account of these resignation was notified in the gazette by Notification dated 16-9-86, as contemplated by Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 40 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Subsequently, by Notification dated 12-1-1987, in exercise of powers conferred on it under S. 337 of the Act, the State Govt. dissolved the Council. Acting under the powers conferred on it under S. 328 (6) (b) of the Act, the State Government appointed an Administrator.

( 3 ) NOTIFICATION dated 16-9-86, whereby the vacancy was notified, has been challenged in this writ petition whereas the orders passed by the State Govt. under Ss. 337 and 328 (6) (b) of the Act have been challenged in writ petition No. 123/87. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that S. 40 (1) of the Act contemplates that any councillor may resign his office by tendering his resignation in writing to the President and since in the instant case, the resignations of the 13 councillors were not tendered to the President, but were tendered to the Collector, i. e. the prescribed authority under S. 40 of the Act directly, these resignations could not have been accepted by the Collector and consequently the notification of occurrence of casual vacancy issued under S. 40 (2) of the Act as also orders of the State Govt. dissolving the Council and appointing an Administrator are invalid. We find it difficult to agree with this submission.

( 4 ) SUB-SECS. (1) and (2) of S. 40 of the Act were substituted by M. P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1982 (43 of 1982 ). The said Section, before being so substituted, read as follows :"40. Resignation by Councillor.- (1) Any Councillor may resign his office by tendering his resignation in writing to the President, and his seat shall thereupon become vacant. (2) On receipt of the resignation under Sub-Sec. (1), the President shall communicate the same to the prescribed authority who shall cause the fact of such resignation and the occurrence of the casual vacancy thereby to be notified in the Gazette. (3) If it appears to the State Government that any Councillor having become liable for removal under S. 41 has tendered his resignation to escape such removal, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, the State Government may order his removal in accordance with the provisions of the said Section and thereupon the Councillor shall be deemed to have been removed from the date he resigned his office. "after amendment Sub-Secs. (1) and (2) of S. 40 read as under :"40 (1 ). Any Councillor may resign his office by tendering his resignation in writing to the President who shall forward it to the prescribed authority. (2 ). On receipt of the resignation under Sub-Sec. (1), the prescribed authority shall - (i) if it is satisfied about its genuineness, accept the resignation and notify the fact of such resignation and the occurrence of casual vacancy by reason of such resignation in the Gazette; (ii) If it is not satisfied about its genuineness, not accept the resignation for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "sub-Sec. (1) of the old S. 40 contemplated that as soon as a resignation was tendered by a councillor to the President, 'his seat shall thereupon become vacant'. It is settled law that when the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. Consequently, if the consequence of the seat becoming vacant was to ensue under Sub-Sec. (1) of old









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