REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SATISH CHANDRA KHANDELWAL Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WESTMINSTER CORPORATION V. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY [REFERRED]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. FULHAM CORPORATION [REFERRED]
SHORT V. POOLE CORPORATION [REFERRED]
ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE V.WEDNESBURY COP. [REFERRED]
ROBERTS V. HOPWOOD [REFERRED]
R. V. ROBERTS [REFERRED]
RUSSEL V. DUKE OF NORFOLK [REFERRED]
COZENS V. NORTH DEVON HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [REFERRED]
STATE OF MADRAS V. "TIRUNELVALI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED]
ASHBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. V. MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [REFERRED]
R. V. DEPUTY INDUSTRIAL INJURIES COMMISSIONER EX PARTE,MOORE [REFERRED]
PADFIELD V. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE [REFERRED]
RE POYSER AND MILLS ARBITRATION [REFERRED]
IVEAGH V. MINISTER OF HOUSING [REFERRED]
PEARLBERG V. VARTY [REFERRED]
MALLOCH V. ABERDEEN CORPORATION [REFERRED]
ASHER V. SECY. OF STATE [REFERRED]
ELLIOT V. LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK [REFERRED]
SECY. OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE V. TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGHCOUNCIL [REFERRED]
RAM LAL LAHOTI V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
LILA KISHAN V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
TOWN MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL COONDAPUR V. STATE OF KARANTAKA [REFERRED]
MOUNT VIEW COURT PROPERTIES LTD. V. DAVLIN [REFERRED]
R. V. SECY. OF STATE FOR HOME DEPTT. [REFERRED]
LAKER AIRWAYA V. DEPTT. OF TRADE [REFERRED]
ME INNES V. INSLOW FANE [REFERRED]
RADESHYAM KHARE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR VS. KESHAV PRASAD GOENKA [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BABULAL KRIPARAM TAKKAMORE [REFERRED]
BHAGAT RAM PATANGA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
M A RASHEED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
HOCHTIEF GAMMON VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
TARA CHAND KHATRI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED]
S L KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
SURESH SETH VS. STATE [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHARSIA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MALKAPUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts. This is a case of considerable civic importance. It raises questions of some nicety regarding the municipal government of Delhi.

(2.) By an order of the Central Government dated April 11, 1980, made under section 490(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act)' the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation) was superseded. As a result all the 100 councillors and aldermen of the Corporation vacated their offices. They became functus officio. During the period of supersession all powers and duties of the Corporation were directed to be exercised and performed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 490. All properties of the Corporation at once vested in the Central Government. The petitioner, Satish Chander Khandelwal,was elected as a councillor in the general elections to the Corporation on June 15, 1977, for a period of four years. He too had to vacate his office. He has brought this writ petition challenging the order of supersession by the Government.

(3.) The Corporation was constituted under the Act as the municipal authority for Delhi and was entrusted with all the powers and duties of a local authority. To it is entrusted the municipal government of Delhi'. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Corporation is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Section 490 of the Act provides for supersession of the Corporation. It says;

Click here to view full judgment.

SATISH CHANDRA KHANDELWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address