D.P.S.CHAUHAN, DIPAK MISRA
PRABHARANI VISHWAKARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) PREGNABILITY of the decision dated 14-8-97 passed in Writ Petition No. 1378/97 by a learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question by the appellant invoking the jurisdiction under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6, the Vice-President and a Councillor of Deori Municipality respectively approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to hold election in accordance with sub-section (4) of the Section 43 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereainafter referred to as 'the Act'), as a vacancy had occurred in the office of the President in the Municipal Council due to the resignation of the President, the respondent No. 4 therein. The fact situation as have been uncurtained in the writ petition are that an election of the councillors was held in the year 1994 for the Municipal Council, Deori (in short 'the Council') and subsequently in January, 1995 the appellant herein was elected to the Office of the President which was reserved for woman candidate belonging to other backward class. The respondent No. 5 was the Vice-President of the Co
Om Prakash Choudhury v. Collector Guna
Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra
Narayana Pillai v. Easwara Pillai
Nathubhai Dhulaji v. Municipal Corporation Bombay
Referred to : Moti Ram v. Param Dev
Daman Singh v. State of Punjab
Shridhar Atmaram Ghadgay v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur
Board of Trustees Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi
MANOHAR SINGH MARWAHA VS STATE OF M. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 429: Prabharani Vishwakarma v. State of M. P. - Identified as bad law. This case appears to establish or discuss the requirement for notice to the corporation itself under relevant legislation (e.g., "Madhya Pradesh Pashu (Niyantran) Adhinyam 1976"). It is contradicted by Manrakhan Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - 2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 725 and Shridhar Atmaram Ghadgay VS The Corporation of the City of Nagpur - 1970 0 Supreme(Bom) 126, which hold that notice to the Chief Municipal Officer/Chief Executive Officer does not constitute notice to the Municipal Council/Corporation, implying the original position in this case has been rejected or overruled in subsequent judicial holdings.
Manrakhan Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - 2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 725: Prabharani Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others - Identified as bad law (or directly linked to bad law). Explicitly states "Held that notice served on the Chief Municipal Officer does not constitute notice to the Municipal Council," directly disapproving the notice validity position associated with Prabharani Vishwakarma, indicating this case or its prior treatment is no longer good law.
Shyam Kishore Agrawal VS Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur - 2015 0 Supreme(Chh) 121: The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prabharani Vishwakarma v. ... - Cited positively as precedent. Uses phrases like "Prabharani Vishwakarma, AIR 1999 MP 223 (supra)" and "while considering," indicating it is being referenced and applied in a subsequent decision without negative treatment.
Narayana Pillai VS Easwara Pillai - 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 226: The legal personality of a corporation is different... - No indicators of judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled). Discusses a distinct legal principle under the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951, unrelated to notice requirements or the other cases; grouped here as it shows no treatment pattern.
Shridhar Atmaram Ghadgay VS The Corporation of the City of Nagpur - 1970 0 Supreme(Bom) 126: A notice under Section 384 of the Corporation Act is mandatory... - States a rule disapproving notice to the Chief Executive Officer, aligning with and supporting the holding in Manrakhan Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - 2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 725. No explicit treatment keywords for this case itself, but it reinforces bad law status of prior cases without indicating its own negative treatment.
[]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.