VIDARBHA NAGARPALIKA PARISHAD AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MURTIZAPUR Vs. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions is referred to a larger Bench to reconsider the constitutional validity of section 48-A of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act No. XL of 1965), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in (Mohamed Maqbool v. State of Maharashtra) 1982 Mh.L.J. 417. Section 48-A of the Act reads as follows :---

(2.) The Municipal Councils of Murtizapur, Arvi and Mangrulpir, three other Municipal Councils specified in the Schedule, are respectively the petitioners in Writ petitions Nos. 824, 826 and 833 of 1984. Vidarbha Nagarpalika Parishad, an organisation of all the Municipal Councils situated in the eight districts of Vidarbha is a registered body recognized by the State of Maharashtra. This body also has filed Writ Petition No. 512 of 1981 assailing the validity of section 48-A of the Act introduced by the Maharashtra Municipalities Amendment Act 1981 (No. 21 of 1981), as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The Five year term of Ballarpur Municipal Council prescribed under section 48-A commenced on 6th August, 1978, when the first meeting of the newly elected body was convened. That five year term expired on 6th August 1983, and the same was extended upto 31st March, 1984 by the Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 40 of the Act under Notification No. ELN-1083/776/CR-188/83/UD-14 dated 21st May, 1983. Though the Government had power to extend the term of the Municipal Councils upto a period of one year, the then Minister of Urban Development. Mr. Ramrao Adik, is alleged to have stated that Administrators would be appointed to all the Municipal Councils in Maharashtra whose extended term expired on 31st March, 1984 and that those appointments would become effective from 1st April, 1984 . He is also alleged to have clarified that this did not mean that the Government was not intending to hold elections and that necessary formalities for holding the elections of the Municipal Councils were completed and the Government intended to hold the elections before the rains set in. The petitioner claimed that so far as Ballarpur Municipal Council was concerned, the division of wards and reservation of seats fro the area of Municipal Council was finally notified in the Government Gazettes on 4th April, 1983 in Part-1-A of the Nagpur Division Supplement. The final list of voters was published on 19th January, 1984. Necessary rules envisaged by section 17 of the Act to regulate the conduct of elections under the Act were framed and all formalities contemplated by sections 10 and 11 and other provisions of the Act were completed. The only step that remained to be taken was to issue a proper notification calling for elections and fixing dates for various stages in the process of the elections and appointing Returning Officers and Assistant Returning Officers, who would take further steps to hold the elections. Inspite of the above, instead of holding elections, the Government proposed to take action under section 48-A of the Act to supersede the Councils and appoint Administrators by issuing a Notification No. MUG -1084/473/CR-73/84/UD-14 dated 30th March, 1980. Petitioners submit that while according to the existing proviso, the aggregate period after which the Municipal Council could be superseded was two and half years. The Maharashtra Ordinance No. 11 of 1983 promulgated with effect from 20th May, 1983 introduced in the proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 48-A the words" 3 years and 2 months" for the words" two and half years". That period was to expire on 5th April, 1984. It is the contention of the petitioners that it was incumbent upon the State Government to hold elections before that date. A Bill which sought to introduce section 7-A in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and which was likely to become an Act any time then further amended the proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 48-A by substituting the words "four years two months" in place of " 3 years and 2 months". The Municipal Councils which were superseded by an order dated 5th April, 1981 would continue to be under the Administrators for a full period of four years two months, which would expire on 5th April, 1985. That Bill merely stated that Government intended to prepare a fresh list of voters who have attained the age of 21 years on 1st January, 1984 and in those circumstances sought an extension of the period of suppression and continuance of the Administrators. The petitioner contends that cannot be deemed to be changed circumstances justifying the suppression. It is contended that section 48-A vests an unbridled and arbitrary power in the State Government to supersede elected bodies for an indefinite period with out laying down any guidelines for the exercise of that power and is, there fore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that in any event, the Government, which is empowered to form its opinion under section 48-A that in the changed circumstances the continuance of such Councillors in office is not necessary or expedient and there is need to extend the period of suppression, should give an opportunity to the Councillors to make their representation against the proposed order of suppression and that extension of the period of suppersession and appointment of an Administrator without giving such an opportunity is violative of the principles of natural justice. The order of supersession itself records no reason for supersession or for extending the period of suppression and thus suffers from the breach of the principles of natural justice. The elected Councillors have a right under sub-section (3) of section 40 of the Act to continue in office until "the date of the special meeting, after the general election, held to elect the President under section 51". That right cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by the State Government by exercising its power under section 48-A of the Act without recording reasons and without recording reasons and without giving an opportunity to the Councillors.