Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige, JJ
Bharatbhushan Sonajirao Kshirsagar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5895 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. P. S. Talekar
For the Respondents: Shri D. R. Kale, Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Shri Sayyad Tausif Yaseen
Delegation of powers in quasi-judicial proceedings must comply with the rules; these rules are directory and not mandatory.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Section 55(A) - Delegation of powers by the Cabinet Minister to the State Minister - The power to decide quasi-judicial proceedings cannot be delegated arbitrarily without compliance with the rules of business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution. (Paras 3, 4, 19, 20)
(B) Article 166 - Rules of Business - Found to be directory in nature and do not affect the validity of proceedings - Thus, the Minister Incharge had sufficient authority to delegate matters to the State Minister. (Paras 15, 16)
(C) Jurisdiction of the Court - When no substantial case is made out for interference under Article 226, the petition can be properly disposed of without costs. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the order transferring disqualification proceedings to the State Minister, alleging political intentions based on party affiliations and improper delegation of powers.
Findings of Court:
The delegation was held proper within the limits prescribed by the Business Rules.
Issues: Whether the delegation by the Hon’ble Minister was valid under Article 166, and the appropriateness of repeatedly calling for reports from the Collector.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the Business Rules showed the delegation procedure was respected, and that the rules are directory, not mandatory.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on political motivations. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's position on the nature of the business rules and their application. (Para 10) |
| 3. confirmation that business rules are directory and permissible for delegation. (Para 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 4. final dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 22) |
FINAL ORDER :
. The petitioner is elected President of the Municipal Council, Beed. The petitioner assumed office in December 2016. The respondent No. 5 filed proceedings U/Sec. 55(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short “Act of 1965”) before the State Government to remove the petitioner from his office as a President. It appears that, the Hon’ble Minister for Urban Development Department issued notice. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Minister for Urban Development Department transferred the proceedings to the State Minister. The petitioner is assailing the order/endorsement dated 03rd March, 2021 transferring the proceedings to the State Minister. The petitioner also assails the communication dated 05.03.2021 calling for the report in respect of complaints against the petitioner from the Collector Beed for deciding proceedings U/Sec. 55(A) of the Act of 1965.
02. Miss Talekar, the learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 5 is politically motivated. The brother of the petitioner belongs to the Shivsena party, whereas the respondent No. 5 belongs to Nationalist Congress Party. To settle the personal and political scores, the complaint U/Sec. 55(A) of the Act of 1965 is filed. The learned advocate submits that, the State Minister is from N.C.P. and for that reason matter has been transferred by the Hon’ble Minister for Urban Development to the State Minister.
03. Miss Talekar, the learned advocate further contends that, as per the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India under signature of the Hon’ble Governor complaint ought to have been dealt with and decided by the Hon’ble Minister and could not have transferred the same to the State Minister. The Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution are framed under the orders of the Hon’ble Governor. The Hon’ble Minister does not have power to alter the business rules. Instructions regarding business of the Government issued under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business made under Article 166 of the Constitution defines the minister incharge as the minister appointed by the Hon’ble Governor to be incharge of the Department of Government to which the case belongs. The case has to be decided by the Minister incharge. As such, it is only the Minister for Urban Development Department, who is competent to decide the same. He does not possess any power to delegate the decision to the State Minister. Under Rule 15 of the Instructions the powers to supplement the instructions are also required to be issued by the Hon’ble Governor on the advise of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister. Reliance is also placed on Clause 10(1) of the Instructions framed by the Hon’ble Governor that the Minister Incharge of the Department shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department or part of the department. In view of that, it was erroneous on the part of the Hon’ble Minister to delegate the powers. The learned advocate relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Smt. Godavari Shamrao Parulekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1128.
04. The learned advocate further submits that, the delegation of powers has to be in a manner as prescribed under the Statute. The rules of business do not empower the Hon’ble Minister to alter the business rules inter alia could not have transmitted the matter to the State Minister. The learned advocate further submits that, no reasons are mentioned whi
