1958 (9) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notification issued under Section 53-A of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, was actually made under Section 57.
2. Whether the notification, if considered under Section 57, was ultra vires due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.
3. Whether the notification under Section 53-A was ultra vires due to a breach of natural justice.
4. Whether the State Government acted in bad faith or with malice.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Whether the Notification Issued Under Section 53-A Was Actually Made Under Section 57:
The appellants argued that the notification, though purportedly made under Section 53-A, was substantively issued under Section 57. Section 53-A allows the State Government to appoint an Executive Officer if a committee is incompetent, while Section 57 permits dissolution or supersession of the committee for incompetence or abuse of power. The appellants contended that the grounds in the notification were indicative of abuse of power, which falls under Section 57. The court held that the State Government had the discretion to act under either section based on its assessment. The presence of findings of abuse of power did not necessitate action under Section 57. The court concluded that the notification was validly issued under Section 53-A, as the State Government was within its rights to choose the less drastic measure of appointing an Executive Officer.

2. Whether the Notification, If Considered Under Section 57, Was Ultra Vires Due to Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The appellants argued that if the notification was under Section 57, it was ultra vires because the statutory requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to explain was not complied with. The court found that since the notification was validly issued under Section 53-A, the requirements of Section 57 did not apply. Therefore, this argument was not relevant.

3. Whether the Notification Under Section 53-A Was Ultra Vires Due to a Breach of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the State Government violated the principles of natural justice by not giving them an opportunity to defend themselves before issuing the notification. The court examined whether the act of the State Government under Section 53-A was administrative or quasi-judicial. It was held that the State Government's action was administrative, as the statute did not expressly or impliedly impose a duty to act judicially. The court noted that the State Government had conducted an inquiry through the Deputy Collector, during which the appellants were given an opportunity to explain the charges. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were not breached.

4. Whether the State Government Acted in Bad Faith or with Malice:
The appellants alleged that the State Government acted with malice, influenced by the first appellant's expulsion from the Congress party. However, this charge was not pressed before the court, and there was no evidence to support it. The court found no merit in the allegation of mala fides.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notification was validly issued under Section 53-A of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The State Government's action was administrative, and the principles of natural justice were not breached. The allegations of mala fides were not substantiated. The court affirmed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, upholding the appointment of the Executive Officer.