9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 610 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of clause (c) of Section 73 of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ('the Act) - Locus standi - Requirement of documents for the Standing Committee's approval - Alternative remedy u/s 451 of the Act - Public interest and statutory duty - First Respondent issued notices inviting tender for supply of various materials - Appellant herein, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Second Respondent-Municipal Corporation of City of Kalyan and Dombivali ('the Corporation') - HELD THAT - The proviso appended to Section 73 carves out an exception to the general rule which evidently has been enacted for the purpose of avoiding any delay and would apply in a situation where despite meeting, the Standing Committee deliberately or otherwise refuses or fails to take any decision. No doubt a legal fiction has been created but the same cannot be given effect to in vacuum. It is to be applied having regard to the legislative intent and a restricted meaning is to be attributed thereto in a situation of this nature. A statute, it is also well-known, must be read in such a manner whereby it is made workable - Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. In any event, where a difficulty arises in a given situation to construe the statute upon applying a plain meaning thereof, it is well-settled, the rule of purpose construction should be applied. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the Standing Committee must be exercised in public interest and, thus, cannot be said to be a formal ones. The members of the Standing Committee must apply their mind to the proposal of the Commissioner where for they must have before them the relevant records. A statutory authority, as is well known, when acts in terms of a statute, is bound by his action. He cannot supplement or supplant the reason later on by way of Affidavit. Furthermore, we find that apart from the fact that no such question had been raised by the Commissioner in his letter dated 9.5.2001, the reasons sought to be assigned in the Counter Affidavit either are unjustified or irrelevant. A Statutory Committee should not be denied access to the documents to which it is entitled to, even according to the State Government. Rule 24 whereupon reliance has been placed by the State Government in its letter dated 18.5.2001 (although may not be a verbatim copy of the extant rules) would also go to show that each member of the Committee is entitled to have access to the documents. No privilege had been claimed nor can be claimed in law in the matter of disclosure of such documents. Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the Commissioner in his Affidavit as regard the consequences which may ensue by disclosure of such documents is not correct, having regard to the fact that the tender had reached the final stage. The contention of the Respondent that all informations had been supplied in the proforma in the light of Chapter V of the Act also appears to be incorrect as in sub-paragraph (E) of paragraph 5 of the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent himself stated that Chapter V of the Schedule of the Act relates to execution of the contract and evidently, thus, would not be applicable for the purpose of grant of approval at the threshold. In any event, the information given in a form is merely a matter of procedure and what matters in a situation of this nature is the substance thereof. The Commissioner, furthermore, despite referring the matter to the State Government did not wait for its opinion on the subject. He invoked the proviso to Section 73(c) much before the opinion of the State as contained in its letter dated 18.5.2001 reached his hands. Submission of Mr. Radhakrishnan that the Appellant has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition cannot be accepted keeping in view the fact that he was the Chairman of the Standing Committee and although the Standing Committee itself was not the writ petitioner. A question involving proper interpretation as regard the statutory provisions conferring a statutory right on a statutory authority vis- -vis a statutory duty on the part of the Commissioner could be gone into by the High Court even in a public interest litigation. We fail to understand as to how the matter can be said to be pending before the State Government. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the Commissioner to provide all requested materials to the Standing Committee as per its resolution dated 26.4.2001. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of clause (c) of Section 73 of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 2. Locus standi of the Appellant. 3. Requirement of documents for the Standing Committee's approval. 4. Alternative remedy u/s 451 of the Act. 5. Public interest and statutory duty. Summary: 1. Interpretation of Clause (c) of Section 73: The Appellant, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to ensure that proposals for contract approval u/s 73 of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, include tender forms and negotiation records. The High Court dismissed the petition based on its interpretation of clause (c) of Section 73 and the Appellant's locus standi. The Supreme Court held that the approval of the Standing Committee is a prerequisite for the Commissioner to execute contracts, and this approval is not a mere formality. The proviso to Section 73(c) is intended to avoid delays but cannot be invoked in a vacuum without considering the legislative intent. 2. Locus Standi of the Appellant: The Respondent argued that the Appellant lacked locus standi. The Supreme Court rejected this, noting that the Appellant, as Chairman of the Standing Committee, had the right to seek judicial intervention for proper statutory interpretation and enforcement of statutory duties. 3. Requirement of Documents: The Standing Committee requested relevant documents to assess the merits of tenders. The Commissioner did not comply, citing potential risks and procedural issues. The Supreme Court found these reasons unjustified, emphasizing that the Standing Committee must have access to necessary documents to perform its statutory functions effectively. The Court noted that the Commissioner acted prematurely by invoking the proviso to Section 73(c) before receiving the State Government's opinion. 4. Alternative Remedy u/s 451: The Respondent contended that the Standing Committee had an alternative remedy u/s 451 of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the issue was not raised before the High Court and that the State Government had already directed the Commissioner to disclose the documents. 5. Public Interest and Statutory Duty: The Supreme Court underscored that statutory authorities must act in public interest and comply with statutory duties. The Standing Committee's request for documents was legitimate and necessary for informed decision-making. The Court held that the Commissioner must provide the requested documents to the Standing Committee. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the Commissioner to provide all requested materials to the Standing Committee as per its resolution dated 26.4.2001. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
