BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY Vs. BHADRIKLAL AMBALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [his Lordship after stating facts as above proceeded:]

(2.) THE first question which was agitated before us was whether the resolution dated 16-12-1942, was validly passed, and if not, what was the effect of the same. Under section 33 (a), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, no Chief Officer can be removed from office, reduced or suspended unless by the votes of at least two-thirds of the whole number of councillors. This Municipality had 30 councillors and 20 councillors voted in favour of the resolution on that day, with the result that if the resolution was otherwise validly passed there was at least two-thirds of the whole number of councillors present at the meeting and the requirements of Section 33 (2) of the Act were complied with. Under section 58 (f) of the Act, the Municipality was empowered to make rules not inconsistent with the Act determining, subject to the limitations imposed by Sections 33, 34 (5) and 34a, the mode and conditions of appointing, punishing or dismissing any officer or servant. Acting under the analogous power gvien under Section 46 (o), Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, the Municipality had made Rule 132 contained in the Broach Municipal Rules of 1912, which ran as under :

(3.) ON the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Municipality that the resolution dated 16-12-1942, could not be challenged as null and void on this ground at all. It was contended that the provisions of B. 182 were not mandatory but merely directory and that the only statutory provision which had to be looked at in this behalf was Section 33 (2), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, that the said provisions had been complied with and that therefore the said resolution was not null and void as contended by the pltf. It was also contended that the amendment was not germane to the proposal and was in any event a negation of the resolution, with the result that the President was right in ruling it out of order, and that in any event the pltf. who was an outsider was not competent to question the validity of the said ruling of the President, the matter being purely a matter of internal administration of the affairs of the Municipality. It was therefore contended that the resolution was within the competence of the Municipality and was validly passed.