Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949:
ss. 20, 21, 31A and 35A – Constitution of Standing Committee and election of Chairman thereof – Propriety of – As per the procedure contemplated u/s.20(3), the names of eight retiring members including the Chairman were selected by draw of lots – Thereafter, due to imposition of ‘code of conduct’ , next stage contemplated by the Act i.e. appointment of eight new members was not undertaken – After the ‘code of conduct’ ceased to be in operation, by notice dated 6.6.2018 meeting was scheduled for 14.6.2018 for appointment of eight new members – Another notice was issued on 12.6.2018 whereby meeting was called on 15.6.2018 for election of Chairman in terms of s.21(5) – Writ Petition was filed challenging the notice dated 12.6.2018 and meetings dated 14.6.2018 and 15.6.2018 – High Court held that there was violation of mandatory requirement of s. 20 and attempt was made to appoint the Chairman by notice dated 12.6.2018, when the Standing Committee was not yet constituted – On appeal, held: Mandates as prescribed by various provisions of the Act were not adhered to and were violated – Due to coming into operation of ‘code of conduct’, steps could not be taken in strict compliance of prescribed timeline – This irregularity led to a situation where urgent actions were taken – Such irregular actions, in substance, followed the mandate of the Act – Such actions have not resulted in deprivation of any right under the statute – There was no reason for the High Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has ruled that the Standing Committee as was in existence before 02.05.2018 shall be the one which must take all the steps and decisions. The decision of the High Court is premised on non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and non-adherence to the timelines as prescribed under the Act. It is clear from the record that the mandates as prescribed by various provisions of the Act were not adhered to and were violated. But the reasons that are forthcoming in the affidavits in reply filed by the respondents are to the effect that there was “code of conduct” issued by the Election Commission of India as a result of which no appropriate steps could be taken. Theoretically it was possible to initiate the steps in the first half of April, 2018 itself but failure on that count, by itself does not make the actions suspect. The “code of conduct” having been brought in force from 20.04.2018, no steps were taken either to identify 8 outgoing members or to have election in terms of or to have the meeting of the Corporation in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 20 before 30.04.2018. What happened thereafter was certainly not in strict compliance of the timelines prescribed. [Para 12, 15 and 16] [130-E; 131-F; 132-D-F]
2. The circumstances show that the irregularity that had crept in as a result of non adherence to the various steps which were required to be taken in the month of April, 2018 led to a situation where certain urgent actions were required to be taken. Though said actions were in a way irregular, but in substance and in real sense they followed the mandate and appropriate steps were taken by the bodies in question and not by any entity or agency which, in law, was not authorised. In this scenario, no emergent directions were required or called for. The appointment of new members of the Standing Committee went on proportional representation theory and was purely by nomination coming from the group leaders. Even if very same exercise is to be undertaken now in terms of the orders passed by the High Court, it would not be qualitatively different. It is not as if any person or a group lost out or was deprived of any right under the statute. Thus, there was no reason for the High Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction and issue directions. [Paras 19 and 20] [134-A-D]
Prithipal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10 : [2012] 14 SCR 862 – referred to.
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.