S. SHARBUDEEN Vs. C. RAMADOSS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chairman of the Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, addressed a letter dated 18th January, 1975, to the Municipal Commissioner of that municipality stating that thereby he tendered his resignation from the chairmanship of the Kumbakonam Municipal Council from that day. He, in that letter, requested the Commissioner to place his letter of resignation before the municipal council for information of the members. The letter wound up by a further request to the Commissioner to convey his thanks for the co -operation and support extended to him previously by the vice -chairman, members of the municipal council and other members and employees of the municipality. Copies of this letter were sent to the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras, the District Collector, Thanjavur, the Assistant Collector, Kumbakonam, and the vice chairman of the municipal council. On the 24th of that month, the municipal council met. 24 members attended including the chairman. The council recorded its acceptance of resignation. The next day he relinquished his office and the vice -chairman assumed charge. On record is the letter from the Deputy Secretary to Government dated 8th May, 1975 addressed to the chairman who had sent the letter of resignation. This letter pointed out that a municipal chairman may resign his office by giving notice to the council and that it would be effective from the date on which it was placed before the council; since the meeting had not yet been convened in the council, it would not be possible for the vice -chairman to step in his place. It appears that the vice -chairman had called the meeting. The letter had also the following:

(2.) SECTION 31 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, says that the Chairman may resign 'by giving notice to the council' and that such resignation shall take effect from the date on which it is placed before the council. It is clear, therefore, that the statutory requirement is that the resignation to take effect must be by notice and the notice should be to the council and lastly, it should be placed before the council, so that from the time of doing so, the resignation may take effect.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant is that there was substantial compliance with Section 31 because the Commissioner through the vice -chairman who convened the meeting had placed the letter of resignation before the council on the 24th of January. We are unable to accept this contention. When a statute requires a certain specified procedure to be followed for resignation of the office of chairman to take effect, it has to be complied with. If the notice was not addressed to the council but only to the Commissioner, that will not be compliance with the requisite statutory procedure. It is no doubt true that the Commissioner as the executive authority transacts executive business on behalf of the council as provided by Sections 13 -A and 13 -B. But that will not make any difference to the requisite that the resignation notice should be to the council. Chapter III which deals with municipal authorities differentiates the authorities as a council, a chairman, and an executive authority. Section 7 deals with the constitution of council. So, when Section 31 speaks of resignation by giving notice to the council, we cannot take a notice to the Commissioner as compliance or sufficient compliance.