MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. RAMKARAN GANESHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN issue has been framed about the necessity of a notice under Section 80, Civil procedure Code, before the filing of the present suit. It is not disputed that the municipality had been superseded and an Administrator appointed. Probably the attention of the Court below was not drawn to Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal committee, Sindi, 1954 Nag LJ 683 (A) which lays down that after supersession of a Municipal Committee under Section 57 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities act, the committee is wholly out of picture and Section 48 of the Municipalities Act does not apply to a Municipal Committee which is rendered dormant by its supersession but that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply as the property of the Committee vests in the State. This ruling was binding on the Court below.

(2.) THE above decision of Mndholkar J. seeks to extend the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision reported in Damodar Tukaram Mangalmoorti v. Municipal Committee, Nagpur, ILR (1951) Nag 81] : (AIR 1951 Nag 47 (2)) (B); but, with great respect, I feel doubtful if it could have been stretched to that extent. In Mohammad Shafi v. Sialkot Municipality, AIR 1940 Lah 451 (C), which has been referred to in Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal Committee, Sindi (A) (supra), i do not find any concluded opinion on the point canvassed in the present case. Then a reference has been made to the observation of Varadachariar J. in administrator, Lahore Municipality v. Daulat Ram Kapur, 1942 FCR 31 : (AIR 1942 fc 14) (D), which, to my mind, is not apt In that case the view put forth in arguments that the Administrator should take proceedings only in the name of the committee was not repelled. No opinion, in fact, was expressed on the point in that case. If the Administrator is substituted in place of the Municipality, howsoever dormant the latter may have been, the Administrator has to perform all the duties conferred and imposed by the Municipalities Act on the Municipal Committee. In fact, the Administrator comes in place of the Municipal Committee and he cannot say that as the property of the Municipal Committee has vested in the State, he cannot be governed by the provisions of the Municipalities Act, I do not think that Section 48 of the C. P. and berar Municipalities Act, 1922, can be deemed to be abrogated from the statute book during the period of suspension of the Municipality. There is no such provision in the said Act from which it could be inferred.

(3.) IN Ahmedabad Municipality v. Mulchand, AIR 1946 Bom 154 (E), it was held by a Division Bench that the State Government would not be a necessary party to a suit filed or continued by the Administrator of a superseded Municipality.