Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 840 (MP)

Mahesh Arya v. State of M. P.

2004-10-18

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition though the relief has been couched in a different manner because of the non-availability of the documents to the petitioner, the basic grievance can be compartmentalized into two, namely that the Chief Municipal Officer has constituted a committee in violation of section 72 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') and that the persons who had lodged the complaint have been made the members of the aforesaid Committee. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that there was some discrepancy with regard to issue of ration card and for that certain complaints were made before the Chief Municipal Officer. 3. The first submission of Mr. Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Committee could not have been constituted as has been done as the same violates the provisions of section 72 of the aforesaid Act. The said provision reads as under : 72. Consultative Committees.- A council may also elect from time to time and for such period as it may think fit, Consultative Committees consisting of such number of councillors as it may think fit and the council or the President may refer to any Committees for inquiry and report or for opinion, any matter relating to the purpose of this Act. 4. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision, I am of the considered opinion the same does not really come into play inasmuch as the Chief Municipal Officer has authority to take appropriate action, if any illegality is found. It is not disputed by Mr. Ahluwalia that he could have done in his individual capacity. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to section 50(2) of the Act. The said provision is reproduced hereunder: (2) Subject to the restrictions, limitations and conditions imposed by this Act and the rules made thereunder the executive powers for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act shall vest in the Chief Municipal Officer. 5. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that section 50(2) is to be controlled by section 72 of the Act. On a reading of both the provisions in juxtaposition, I am disposed to think that as far as the present factual matrix is concerned section 50(2) is neither guided nor controlled by section 72 of the Act. 5. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that section 50(2) is to be controlled by section 72 of the Act. On a reading of both the provisions in juxtaposition, I am disposed to think that as far as the present factual matrix is concerned section 50(2) is neither guided nor controlled by section 72 of the Act. The term "Committee" has been defined under section 3(5-a) which means Committee constituted under this Act. There are various committees like Advisory Committee, Wards Committee, etc. The conception of Selection Committee and the job ascribed to it appears to be different than what is to be done by the Chief Municipal Officer under section 50(2) of the Act. In this regard section 92 is also worth reproducing. It reads as under : 92. Special functions of Chief Municipal Officer.- (1) The Chief Municipal Officer shall - (a) subject to the general control of the President, watch over the financial and executive administration of the Council and perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specially imposed or conferred upon him, by or delegated to him, under this Act. (b) give effect to the decisions taken, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye-laws made thereunder by the council and submit periodical reports, if the Council so directs, regarding the progress made in respect thereto. (2) Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Chief Municipal Officer by this Act may be exercised, performed, or discharged under the Chief Municipal Officer's control and subject to his superintendence to such conditions and limitations, if any, as he may think fit to prescribe, by any Municipal Officer may generally whom the Chief Municipal Officer may generally or specially empower in writing in this behalf. 6. If the scheme of the Act is scanned in the proper perspective and purposive manner the submission of Mr. Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel seems to be quite remote and does not fall in the realm of real acceptation. The Constitution of consultative committee is quite different. The same cannot really restrain or impose a condition on the Chief Municipal Officer to gather material to find about the truthfulness of the allegations against the person who is appointed Alderman. 7. As far as second submission of Mr. The Constitution of consultative committee is quite different. The same cannot really restrain or impose a condition on the Chief Municipal Officer to gather material to find about the truthfulness of the allegations against the person who is appointed Alderman. 7. As far as second submission of Mr. Ahluwalia is concerned, it has been asseverated in the petition that the person who had complained against the petitioner have been included in the Committee by the Chief Municipal Officer. Mr. Dubey, Deputy Advocate General for the State fairly stated that any one who has made complaints against the petitioner shall not be a member of the said Committee. The submission of Mr. Dubey, is correct and appreciated inasmuch as such inclusion comes within the sphere of bias doctrine of necessity is not applicable to the case at hand as there are other members. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that if any person who has submitted complaint against the petitioner shall not be the part of the Committee. Needless to emphasise that this is well settled principle of law that nobody should be judge of his own cause. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.