C JAYAVELOO Vs. STATE OP MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the question of law raised is of considerable importance and, that is whether the Govt have power under S.322 of the Karnaitaka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act) to revise an order made or resolution passed by the Administrator of any Municipality.

(2.) Before I proceed to state the facts it may be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, which have got a bearing on the question. Sec. 315 confers power on the Government to appoint an Administrator to, perform the functions of any Municipal Council. The section provides that when an administrator is appointed, he shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties or functions of the Municipal Council, Committee thereof, the President and Vice President. The State Govt. if it thinks fit may appoint an Advisory Council to advise and assist the administrator in the exercise of the duties and functions conferred upon him under the Act or any other law. S. 316 confers powers on the Government to supersede a Municipal Council whenever it is found to be incompetent or defaulted or have exceeded its powers and thereupon to appoint an administrator in its place S-356(a), defines Municipal Council to include an administrator or officer appointed to exercise the powers of a Municipal Council under S. 315 or S. 316 of the Act. Under S. 303, the Commissioner has been constituted as the Chief Controlling Authority in respect of all matters relating to the administration of the Act and he shall be always subject to the control and orders of the Government.

(3.) The facts leading up to the petition are these: In the year 1971, two thirds of this elected councillors of the Town Municipal Council, Robertsonpet resigned on some ground. The Government thereafter appointed an Administrator under S. 315(1) (d) of the Act. The petitioners applied! for the grant of certain shop sites. The administrator by his resolution dated 22-11-1972 granted a site to each of the petitioners on lease for a period of five years at a rent of Rs. 20 per month. By the said resolution, the administrator directed the lessees to construct buildings at their own cost and hand over the same after the expiry of the lease with a further direction that they shall not claim any compensation when they surrender the premises. Complaining against the action taken by the administrator, a Member of the Legislative Council hailing from that places wrote a letter to the Govt. on 8-12-1972 that the administrator has committed irregularities in the allotment of sites to the petitioners. On receipt of the said letter, the Hon'ble Minister for Municipal Administration called for a report from the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore. The Divisional Commissioner in his report dated 20-6-1973 has observed that the administrateor has not followed the procedure provided under Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (guidance of Officers Grant of Copies off Miscellaneous Provision) Rules, 1966. The said Rule provides that before granting a lease of any Municipal site wide publicity should be given in news papers and also by beat of drum in the locality.