Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: ss. 6, 6A, 20, 452A; Constitution of India, Art.243U – Corporation election – Continuance of Standing Committee – When the term of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) came to an end – State government on being informed that it was not possible to conduct general elections for constitution of the new Corporation, appointed an administrator – Appellant, Chairman of the Standing Committee of PMC filed a writ petition before High Court on the ground that the Standing Committee shall remain in existence until constitution of new Standing Committee, irrespective of appointment of the administrator – High Court dismissing writ petition held that once a Councillor ceases to be Councillor, the Standing Committee would not still exist and continue to function as such and it was the Administrator, who was appointed, who would exercise the powers and functions of the Corporation – Challenge against – Held: When no person could be said to be holding the office of the Councillor after completion of the term in view of the mandate of ss.6 and 6A of the Act of 1949, it follows as a necessary corollary that the Standing Committee stood dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation – The proviso to sub-section (3) of s.20 cannot be read to mean that notwithstanding the expiration of the duration of a Corporation and thereby, termination of the term of office of the Councillors, there could still be any Standing Committee in existence – Sub-sections (1A) and (1B) of s.452A of the Act, which are operating in the instant case, deal with a specific peculiar contingency where general elections could not be held during the time specified by the enactment even after the expiry of the term of the Corporation, essentially due to COVID-19 pandemic situation – Appointment of Administrator in such a contingency does not and ADMINISTRATOR OF PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN.
cannot override the mandate of Art.243U of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of ss.6 and 6A of the Act as regards the tenure – End of the tenure of Corporation has its consequential effect of the end of the term of the office of the Councillor; and when no person including the present appellant could be said to be holding the office of Councillor after end of the term of the Corporation, existence of any Standing Committee thereafter, is simply out of question – Any other interpretation shall be standing at conflict with the mandate of Art.243U of the Constitution of India and ss.6 and 6A of the Act of 1949.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Whether the Standing Committee could be said to be a continuing Committee even after the term of the Corporation has come to an end and thereby, the term of the office of its members, i.e., the Councillors has also ended. The answer could only be in the negative. [Para 12][196-F]
1.2 When no person could be said to be holding the office of the Councillor after completion of the term in view of the mandate of Sections 6 and 6A of the Act of 1949, it follows as a necessary corollary that the Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act of 1949 essentially comes in operation only in the eventuality when there are existing members of the Standing Committee in office when general elections are held and they are to retire on the election of a new Committee, i.e., at the first meeting of the Corporation after general elections. The proviso cannot be read to mean that notwithstanding the expiration of the duration of a corporation and thereby, termination of the term of office of the Councillors, there could still be any Standing Committee in existence. It gets perforce iterated that the Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation. [Para
13 & 14][197-B-E]
1.3 The provision of Section 452 essentially operates in relation to the contingency where the State Government takes the steps for dissolution of the existing Corporation after opportunity of show cause upon being satisfied that the Corporation is not competent to perform the duties imposed upon it or is persistently making default or is abusing its powers. Subsections (1A) and (1B) of Section 452A of the Act, which are operating in the present case, deal with a specific peculiar contingency where general elections could not be held during the time specified by the enactment even after the expiry of the term of the Corporation, essentially due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. Appointing of Administrator in such a contingency does not and cannot override the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of Sections 6 and 6A of the Act as regards the tenure. [Para 15][197-F-H; 198-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.