Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 88 (GAU)

Ashem Bira Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2000-02-29

P.C.PHUKAN

body2000
This an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the resolution No .2 (a) dated 29.8.96 passed by the Thoubal Municipal Council refusing to accept the appointment of the petitioner by the State Govt as a Member of the said Council and also for directing the said Municipal Council to administer oath to him as Member of the said Council. 2. I have heard Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. L. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for the respondents. I have also considered the records of the case. 3. The petitioner was appointed by the State Govt as a Member of the said Municipal Council under section 15 (3) of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994, herein after called the Act, vide order dated 7th January, 1996 (Annexure A/1) read with the corrigendum dated 6.2.96 (Annexure A/2). By a letter dated 17.2.96 (Annexure A/3), the petitioner informed the respondent No 4, the Executive Officer of the said Council, that he wanted to take oath as such. The said Municipal Council, however made no arrangement for oath taking and ultimately passed the following resolution dated 29.8.96 (Annexure A/11) impugned in this writ petition: "Resolution No. 2 (a) : Executive Officer placed the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal under No.6/7/DC(TBL)/96/V&T/17321 dated 24th August, 1996 before the Council. The Executive Officer read out the said letter, all the correspondence letters of the Council, and the provisions of section 15, section 20 and section 221 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 were minutely considered. After minute consideration, all the Councilors unanimously did not accept the appointment of A. Bira Singh as Govt Councillor as he does not possess the qualification mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 15 of Municipalities Act, 1994. Because A. Bira Singh is a retired teacher. The Council does not believe that he has possessed the knowledge of Municipal Administration. Therefore, it is further resolved to prefer an appeal before the Law Court against the appointment." 4. Sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 referred to in the above resolution reads : "(3) The State Govt may appoint a person having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration to be a Member of the Municipal Council, (emphasis supplied)" 5. Sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 referred to in the above resolution reads : "(3) The State Govt may appoint a person having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration to be a Member of the Municipal Council, (emphasis supplied)" 5. The bio-data given in para 1 of the writ petition does not indicate even remotely that the petitioner has experience in Municipal Administration. It is stated in para 1 that the educational qualification is BA, BT, that he served as Headmaster of a Primary School and was later upgraded as a teacher of Junior High School and retired as such. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is added that in his degree course, the petitioner took Political Science as one of his subjects, the syllabus of which included study of Municipal Administration. It is pertinent to note that section 15 (3) of the Act speaks of' special knowledge' in Municipal Administration and not mere knowledge thereof. However, I do not propose to deal with the question as to whether the petitioner has special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration within the meaning of section 15 (3) and as to whether the Govt orders appointing the petitioner as a Member of the said Municipal Council under section 15 (3) are liable to be quashed on the ground that he has no such knowledge or experience, because it is beyond the scope of the instant writ petition. The instant writ petition is rather for quashing the Municipal Council Resolution dated 29.8.96 (Annexure A/11) refusing to accept the said Govt orders. The impugned resolution was passed by the Thoubal Municipal Council, and yet the said Municipal Council in its name has not been impleaded as a respondent in this writ petition and only the Executive Officer and the Chairperson of the said Municipal Council have been impleaded as respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 respectively. Section 13 of the Act, reads as under: "13. A Municipal Council shall be a body corporate by its name, having a perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract, and shall sue and be sued in its name, (emphasis supplied)” 6. The Thoubal Municipal Council has not been impleaded in its name in this writ petition for quashing the resolution (Annexure A/11) passed by it. The Thoubal Municipal Council has not been impleaded in its name in this writ petition for quashing the resolution (Annexure A/11) passed by it. On this score alone, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed. 7. Besides the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court for quashing the above resolution passed by the Thoubal Municipal Council, the petitioner filed a petition dated 31.10.96 (Annexure A/12) before the Secretary to the Govt of Manipur, Municipal Administration and the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District, for suspending the execution of the said resolution under section 203 of the Act. The relevant portion of this section reads : "203. (1) The Govt or the Deputy Commissioner may, by order in writing, suspend the execution of any resolution or order of the Municipality or if in its or his opinion, the resolution or order or act is contrary to the public interest or is in excess of the powers conferred by law" 8. It is for the State Govt (respondent No. 1) or the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District (respondent No.2) to dispose of, if not already disposed of the above mentioned petition (Annexure A/12) filed by the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of section 203 of the Act with intimation to the Thoubal Municipal & Council and the petitioner about the orders passed thereon. The petitioner may submit a fresh copy of the said petition (Annexure A/12) along with a copy of this order either to the respondent Na 1 or to the respondent No.2. 9. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.