MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GREATER BOMBAY Vs. STEELAGE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Application was listed at serial no. 61 on today's Board. At 11 a.m. the Advocate for the Respondent No.2, who is assignee from Respondent No.1, mentioned the matter for being taken out of turn on the ground that Respondent No.2 and the Applicants had settled the entire dispute inter se and that they wanted to file Consent Terms. In view of this, the Petition was taken up out of turn and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has tendered the Minutes of Order dated 4th October, 20011 signed by Shri M.N. Baid, Education Officer, M.C.G.M. for and on behalf of the Applicant No. 2 and the Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. I.E. Makani for M/s. Redstone Realtors being Respondent No. 2 and the Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Other Applicant being Applicant No.2 and Respondent No.1 have not signed the said Consent Minutes of Order. The said Minutes of Order are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

(2.) THE Minutes of Order do not indicate that there is any resolution passed by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation, authorizing the Education Officer to sign the said Minutes of Order which are in fact in the nature of Consent Terms nor do they show that there is even authorization from the Municipal Commissioner to sign the said Minutes of Order. Mr. Singh however brought to my notice that the draft terms have been approved by the Additional Municipal Commissioner. Mr. Anil Singh, has placed on record a photo copy of the document, styled as 'Consent Terms' between the Applicants and Respondent No.2, prepared some time in the month of August, 2011 and states that this draft has also been approved by the Dy. Municipal Architect (School Infrastructure Cell), Dy. Chief Engineer (SIC), Education Officer, Dy. Municipal Commissioner of Education dated 9.9.2011. However, since I am of the view that even Municipal Commissioner does not have authority to enter into this Compromise under the provisions of the Act, this approval of the aforesaid Officers is of no consequence.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to note that though the Trial Court had dismissed the suit and though there was no Decree for possession, by a procedure which is not known, as is clear from the record, the possession of 15 Rooms is stated to have been handed over to the Respondent No.2. There is nothing on record to show that before doing so, the procedure prescribed by Chapter 5 of the MMC Act, 1888 was followed. It is in these circumstances, that these Consent Terms, drafted as Minutes of Order were sought to be tendered on record and the Court was called upon to pass a decree in terms of the said Consent Terms. I had, therefore, called upon the learned Advocate for the Corporation Mr. Anil Singh and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 Mr. Jain to consider the relevant provisions of MMC Act, 1888 so as to find out whether such a course would be permissible and whether either the Municipal Commissioner or the Additional Municipal Commissioner or Education Officer of the Municipal Corporation would be entitled to enter into such a Consent Terms. Accordingly, they have advanced their respective submissions. With their assistance, I have considered the relevant provisions.