9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Proper construction of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950. 2. Jurisdiction of the State Government to entertain revisions against orders of a Municipal Authority. 3. Finality of orders passed by the President of the Municipal Council under the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943. 4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and the role of courts in statutory construction. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Proper Construction of the Proviso to Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950: The core issue was the interpretation of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950. The proviso stated that "the Government may, of its own motion or on the application of a Municipal authority or of any aggrieved person call for the record of any case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or expediency of any order passed by a Commissioner or a Municipal authority and may pass such orders therein as the Government may consider fit and reasonable." The Court emphasized that the words "or a municipal authority" should not be omitted or deleted from the operative part of the enactment. The Court held that unless the words are unmeaning or absurd, it is not permissible to refuse to give effect to the provisions of a statute merely because they do not accord with the context or the purpose of the legislation as gathered from the preamble or long title. 2. Jurisdiction of the State Government to Entertain Revisions Against Orders of a Municipal Authority: The Court found that the State Government had the jurisdiction to entertain revisions against the orders of the President of the Municipal Council. The High Court had earlier held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of the Chairman of the Municipal Council, which was not subject to an appeal under the City of Jaipur Municipal Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the words "or a municipal authority" in the proviso to Section 4(1) should be given effect. The Court concluded that the proviso provided a substitute or an alternative remedy to that which is prohibited by the main part of Section 4(1). 3. Finality of Orders Passed by the President of the Municipal Council Under the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943: The Court examined whether the order of the President of the Municipal Council, which was final and not subject to appeal under the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, could be revised by the State Government. The Supreme Court held that the words "orders of a municipal authority" in the proviso to Section 4(1) included final orders not subject to a Municipal appeal. Therefore, the State Government had the power to revise such orders. 4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and the Role of Courts in Statutory Construction: The Court emphasized the principles of statutory interpretation, stating that it is not permissible to omit or delete words from the operative part of an enactment merely because they do not accord with the context or the purpose of the legislation. The Court held that the function of a Court of construction is to give effect to the words of the statute, unless they are unmeaning or absurd. The Court also stated that the preamble may be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it cannot be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration of other objections raised by the respondent. The Court held that the State Government had the jurisdiction to entertain revisions against the orders of the President of the Municipal Council and that the words "or a municipal authority" in the proviso to Section 4(1) should be given effect. The costs of the parties in the Supreme Court would abide the result and be provided for by the High Court in its final order.
|
