9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corporation under ss. 408 and 409 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act 1948 (C. P. Berar Act 11 of 1950). On September 30, 1965, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and the order of supersession. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of supersession. The High Court held that the State Government exercised its power under S. 408 on grounds which were not reasonably related to its legitimate exercise and the finding upon which the order was passed was rationally impossible on the materials before the State Government. The State of Maharashtra now appeals to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. By an order of this Court, the Administrator of the City of Nagpur appointed under the order of supersession of September 29, 1965, has been joined as the second appellant. Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act 1948 is in 'these terms:- 408. (1) If at any time upon representations made or otherwise it appears to the State the Corporation is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law for the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or exceeds or abuses its powers . Likewise, the order is liable to be set aside if it was passed in bad faith or if in a case which was not one, of emergency, due opportunity to show cause was not given to the corporation. In all such cases, the order is in excess of the statutory power under s. 408 and is invalid. On the question whether the order under s. 408 is an administrative or quasi-judicial act, our attention was drawn to the decisions in Municipal Committed, Karali and Another, v. The State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1958 M.P. 323 and Shri Radheshyam Khare and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, [1959] S.C.R. 1440. These cases turned on the construction of ss. 53A and 57 of the C. P. Berar Municipalities Act 1922 (Act 11 of 1922). The point whether the order under s. 408 is quasi-judicial or administrative act is not very material, for it is common ground, that the present case was not one of emergency and the State government was bound to give opportunity to the corporation to show cause why the order should not be made. The order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s specified aforesaid, hereby- (1) directs that all the Councillors of the Municipal Corporation shall retire from office as and from the 1st day of October, 1965; (2) declares the Municipal Corporation to be superseded from that date; and (3) appoints Shri D. H. Deshmukh to be the Administrator of the City of Nagpur From the order it appears that there were two grounds on which the State government formed the opinion that the corporation was not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or under the Nagpur Municipal Corporation Act, 1948. Annexure 2 to the show-cause notice dated July 21, 1965 Set out the following facts relatable to the first ground mentioned in paragraph 1(a) of the order:- II. (1) In March 1962, the free cash balance with the Corporation was Rs., 5. 81 lacs. On 12-7-65, the opening cash balance of the Corporation ,as ₹ 53,821. The Statement 'A' appended hereto will reveal the financial. position of the Corporation. On the basis of average daily receipts the Corporation will have an opening balance of ₹ 7 -74 lacs on 1-8-65 as against that their immediate liabilities are of the order of ₹ 30 84 lacs. 'It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to disburse' the salaries of its officers and servants. The, corporation resolved to raise a loan of ₹ 15 lacs from the State; Government, but, the; loan was not raised. The High Court also pointed out that many of the statements in the. statement A referred to in the show- cause notice were factually incorrect. The opinion of the State government, based on the first ground cannot be sustained, firstly because the corporation had no, opportunity to show cause against the charge, and secondly, because no reasonable Person on the materials before the State government could possibly form the opinion that the charge was proved:- The second. ground referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of the order dated September 29, 1965 is more serious. Section 57(1)(k) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 provides that the corporation shall make adequate provision by any means or measures which it may lawfully use or take for........... (k) the management and maintenance of all municipal water-works and the construction and maintenance of new works and Means for providing sufficient supply of suitable water for public and private purposes. The charge was that the corporation negl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At a meeting held on June 30, 1965, the corporation appears to have disapproved of the standing committee's resolution regarding the principle of universal meterisation and setting up a separate subsidiary budget for water supply though no specific resolution to that effect was passed. A meeting of the corporation on July 5, 1965 was convened to discuss the matter of raising a loan of ₹ 70 lacs. In the notice calling the meeting, the following office note appeared at the foot of the relevant agenda:- In this connection the State Government demanded the following two assurances from the Corporation, (1) Nagpur Corporation should meter the water supply immediately. (2) In the annual budget of the Corporation, budget of the water works department should be shown separately for supply of water. In the said budget provision for payment of loans, sinking. fund and future increase, in expenditure should be made separately. After making these provisions the Corporation can expend the money for other works. On July 5, 1965, the meeting was adjourned. On July 1,2, 1965, the corporation passed the, following resolution:- The Corporation gives its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the loan of ₹ 70 lacs for meeting this cost. The High Court accepted the contention that at the meeting held on July 12, 1965, the corporation had resolved that-the matter with regard to the conditions imposed by the government for giving the loan should be left for further negotiations with the government. But it is to be noticed that the resolution dated July 12, 1965 did riot state that there should be any further negotiations with the government on the matter, nor did it disclose the financial problem with regard to meterisation or the basis upon which further negotiations should take place. On June 30, 1965, he corporation had talked out the recommendation of the standing committee with regard to the universal meterisation and separate budget. In this background, the State government. could reasonably hold that the passing of the resolution excluding the office note amounted to virtual rejection of the conditions mentioned in the note. The High Court was in error in accepting the first contention. The High Court was also in error in holding that the Government passed the order of September 29, 1965 without considering that universal meterisation posed a formidable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviewing the earlier cases Jagannadhadas J, in Dwarka Dass Bhatia v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir [1956] S.C.R. 948,955 said: The principle underlying all these decisions is 'this. Where power is vested in a statutory authority to deprive the liberty of a subject on its subjective satisfaction with reference to specified matters, if that satisfaction is stated to be based on a number of grounds or for a variety 'of reasons all taken together, and if some out of them are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the very exercise of that power is bad. This is so because the matter being one for subjective satisfaction, it must be properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based. If 'some out of them are found to be non- existent or irrelevant, the Court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the said authority would have been on the exclusion of those grounds or reasons. To uphold the validity of such an order in spite of the invalidity of some of the reasons or grounds would be to substitute the objective standards of the Court for the subjective satisfaction of the. statutory authority. In applying these principles, however, the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of natural justice. It held that the second charge and only two heads of the first charge were established and directed the Governor to reconsider whether on the basis of these charges the punishment of dismissal should be maintained. On appeal, this Court set aside the order of the High Court. In the course of the judgment, Shah, J, observed: If the High Court is satisfied that if some but not all of the findings of the Tribunal were 'unassailable', the order of the Governor on whose powers by the rules no restrictions in determining the appropriate punishment are placed, was final, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty, for as we have already observed the order Of dismissal passed by a competent authority on a public servant, if the conditions of the constitutional protection has been complied with, is not justiciable. Therefore if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
