9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Arbitrary exercise of power by Municipal Commissioner in cancelling panel of empanelled lawyers representing Corporation and appointing someone else without approval.
Summary: The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, was empanelled to represent a Municipal Corporation before the High Court. The Municipal Commissioner cancelled the panel made on 5.3.2013, citing lack of approval by the Empowered Standing Committee, and appointed another lawyer to represent the Corporation. The petitioner challenged this action as arbitrary, contending that the Commissioner's failure to seek approval should not penalize the empanelled lawyers. The Resolution of the Empowered Standing Committee dated 26.8.2013 supported the panel without disapproval. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of Article 14 in discretionary appointments and held that the Municipal Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and unjust. The Court quashed the cancellation of the panel and the appointment of another lawyer, emphasizing the Commissioner's duty to serve the Corporators and not act above them. In conclusion, the Court found the Municipal Commissioner's actions to be arbitrary and unjust, quashing the cancellation of the panel and the appointment of another lawyer to represent the Corporation. The Court emphasized the Commissioner's duty to serve the Corporators and not act above them, highlighting the importance of democratic principles in local self-government.
|
