Back
1974 Supreme(MP) 45
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare, C. J. and M. L. Malik, J.
RAM SHARAN BARI MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR JABALPUR
Versus
K L DUBE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JABALPUR
Decided On : Apr 23,1974
GULAB GUPTA, O.P.NAMDEO, P.S.NAIR, R.S.DABIR, S.D.Mukerjee,
Headnote:(1) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (MP) - Ss.400 & 401 - proceedings against Municipal Corporation - Municipal Commissioner can represent - Mayor cannot represent the Corporation.
(2) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - petition against Municipal Corporation - the Corporation should be represented through the Municipal Commissioner.
The Municipal Corporation is a legal entity and is a distinct identity apart from the office- bearers of the Corporation and it is the Municipal Commissioner, who can represent the Municipal Corporation in the legal proceedings and any notice of legal proceeding has to be given to the Municipal Commissioner.
The mayor cannot represent the corporation in legal proceedings, but he can represent himself only. [Para 8]
(3) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - necessary party not impleaded - relief against such party cannot be given.
The petition sought to get a resolution of the Municipal Corporation quashed, but did not implead the corporation as a party, the prayer cannot be granted. [Para 9]
(4) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (MP) - meeting for removal of Mayor or Deputy Mayor - only Commissioner can call - there is no provision for censuring Mayor - matter which cannot be considered directly cannot be considered indirectly.
For the purposes of removal of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, a meeting has to be called in the manner prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that neither the Mayor nor the Deputy Mayor has the power to convene such a meeting. But it is the Commissioner alone who has the power to convene such a meeting.
There is no provision in the Act for merely censuring the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor and the attempt of the ten requisitions to censure the Mayor and the Chairman of the Standing Committee in a special meeting convened under section 30 of the Act, would not be warranted by any provision of the Act. [Para 12]
Matters of general importance can certainly be considered by a Municipal Corporation. but the distinction would be this that such matters might be considered by the Corporation under its general powers. But where the matter is specifically covered by a specific provision of the Corporation Act, the same thing cannot be done except in the manner laid down by such specific provisions. 1964 JLJ 201 relied on. [Para 21]
(5) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (MP) - S. 39-A - motion against the Chairman Standing Committee - should be first brought before the Standing Committee.
For a consideration of motion against the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the meeting should be called in accordance with sub section (2) of section 39-A of the Act.
Such a motion of no-confidence has to be moved in the Standing Committee. We are not required to pronounce whether such a resolution can be brought before the general meeting of the Corporation, but it has necessarily to be first considered by the Standing Committee itself. [Para 13]
(6) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (MP) - S. 36 - meeting suspended due to grave disorder - should be reconvened within three days - where the requisition of the meeting net in order it may not be reconvened. [Para 19]
( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india by a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, wherein the petitioner seeks to have set aside the order of the Mayor, namely, respondent no. 1, dated 15-3-1974, refusing to put before the House the petitioners resolution, dated 12-3-1974, censuring the first respondent, on the ground that there is no provision in the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, for moving a censure motion.
( 2. ) THE first respondent is a Mayor of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation, while the second respondent, Shri Anilkumar Sharma, is the Deputy mayor. Ten Councillors of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation on 2-3-1974 (Vide Petitioners Annexure -A) gave a notice of the censure motion to be moved against the Mayor and the Chairman of the Standing Committee. It may be relevant to reproduce the resolution, which is as follows : Translated in English, the resolution would read as follows :
"due to administrative slackness employees are dissatisfied, officers are dissatisfied, Councillors are dissatisfied and the general public is dissatisfied. But to this there is a lot of discontent and corruption has increased. There is dereliction of duty. For this sorry state of affairs the Mayor and the Chairman of the Standing Committee are to be blamed. This House censures both these office bearers. "
( 3. ) THIS requisition was addressed to the Mayor, who from 2-3-1974 to 1-3-1974 was away from Jabalpur. Therefore, in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor (respondent 2) purported to pass four orders on 2-3-1974 (Petitioners Annexures-B/l,b/2, B/3 and B/4), wherein he purported to exercise powers under section 25 (2) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and stayed certain actions being taken and further he directed that the matters thus suspended be put up for consideration before the next Meeting of the Corporation.
( 4. ) IN accordance with the requisition, dated 2-3-1974 (Petitioners Annexure -A), the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation, as per section 30 of the Act, issued a notice of a Meeting of the Corporation scheduled to be convened on 12-3-74 to consider the censure motion proposed by the Councillor, Shri Rajabahadursingh. Notices of the proposed Meeting were sent to all the Councillors.
( 5. ) THE petitioner has filed a newspaper report of the proceedings dated 12-3-1974 (petitioners Annexure- D ). On behalf of the first respondent the actual proceedings (Respondents Annexure-1) have been filed. In view of the authoritative version of the proceedings, we shall ignore the newspaper report. As per the authoritative proceedings 33 Councillors, including the respondents, participated in the Meeting, Twenty four Councillors were absent. The Corporation considered the four stay orders (Petitioners Annexure-B/1, B/2, B/3 and B/4) passed by the Deputy Mayor. During the Meeting some of the Councillors started raising slogans. However, the business was transacted for sometime and ultimately by a huge majority the four stay orders passed by the deputy Mayor, were set aside. Again there was disturbance and the councillors started raising slogans. As the proceedings of the Corporation could not be carried on, the Mayor declared the Meeting closed saying that there was no provision in the Act for bringing a censure motion of the kind and as there was no other subject for consideration.
( 6. ) THEREAFTER the Councillor, Rajabahadursingh on 15-3-1974 (Vide petitioners Annexure-E) requested the Mayor to re-convene the Meeting under section 36 of the Act, which had been adjourned due to disturbance on 12-3-1974. In reply the Mayor said that there is no provision in the Act for bringing such a censure motion. The Meeting had been declared closed and not adjourned and as such, there was no question of reconvening the same under section 36 of the Act. It is this order of the Mayor that is challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings. It may be rele
