1993 (4) TMI 332 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the resignation tendered by the petitioner.
2. Authority of the Additional Collector to accept the resignation.
3. Applicability of alternative remedies under the Municipalities Act.
4. Interpretation of the term "Collector" under the Municipalities Act.
5. Applicability of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
6. Timing and effectiveness of the resignation and its withdrawal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the resignation tendered by the petitioner:
The petitioner, who was the President of the Municipal Council, Achalpur, tendered his resignation on 15-12-1992, effective from 16-12-1992. The resignation was addressed to the Collector, Amravati, but was handed over to the Additional Collector. The petitioner attempted to withdraw his resignation on 16-12-1992, but the respondents disputed the timing of the receipt of the withdrawal letter. The court found that the resignation became effective from 16-12-1992, and the subsequent withdrawal was not valid as it was submitted after the resignation had already taken effect.

2. Authority of the Additional Collector to accept the resignation:
The petitioner argued that only the Collector, as a persona designata under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, could accept the resignation. The respondents countered that under Section 13(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the Additional Collector could exercise the powers of the Collector if a notification was issued by the State Government. The court noted that a notification dated 22-7-1986 allowed Additional Collectors to exercise all the powers of the Collector within their respective jurisdictions. The court held that the Additional Collector was authorized to accept the resignation.

3. Applicability of alternative remedies under the Municipalities Act:
The respondents argued that the petitioner should have challenged the election of the new President through an election petition as provided under the Municipalities Act. The court rejected this preliminary objection, stating that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the writ petition was filed before the election of the new President and that the election was subject to the result of the writ petition.

4. Interpretation of the term "Collector" under the Municipalities Act:
The court referred to Section 3(11) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which defines "Collector" as the Chief Officer in charge of the revenue administration of a district. The court held that in the absence of a specific definition in the Municipalities Act, the term "Collector" should be understood as defined in the General Clauses Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

5. Applicability of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
The court considered Section 10 of the Code, which allows the Additional Collector to temporarily succeed to the office of the Collector if the latter is disabled from performing his duties, vacates his office, leaves his jurisdiction, or dies. The court held that the Collector being on casual leave falls within the scope of being "disabled from performing his duties," thus allowing the Additional Collector to function as the Collector.

6. Timing and effectiveness of the resignation and its withdrawal:
The court noted that the resignation became effective from 16-12-1992, which means after the midnight of 15-12-1992. The petitioner's subsequent letter of withdrawal, whether received at 1:05 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. on 16-12-1992, was not valid as the resignation had already taken effect. The court concluded that the resignation was validly accepted, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was valid and effective from 16-12-1992. The Additional Collector was authorized to accept the resignation, and the subsequent withdrawal by the petitioner was not valid. The court also rejected the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy and interpreted the term "Collector" in line with the General Clauses Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.