THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court affirming on appeal the decision of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal as incompetent.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by the Plaintiff -Respondent to the effect that he was entitled to reinstatement and consequential relief in the form of mandatory injunction to the effect that the order of dismissal passed against him was illegal. This suit was decreed by the trial Court. The Defendant -Committee did not pass any resolution within the period of limitation to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The Executive Officer, However, passed an order under Section 35 of the Punjab Municipal Act on 27th of January, 1969. In pursuance of that order, an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge. When the appeal came up for hearing an objection was raised that the appeal was not competent because the Municipal Committee had not passed a resolution authorising the filing of the appeal and there was no occasion for the Executive Officer to act under Section 35 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 35 could not be utilised by the Executive Officer and as there was no resolution by the Municipal Committee, the appeal was incompetent. Accordingly, he rejected the appeal. Against this decision, an appeal was preferred to this Court. It was contended before the learned Single Judge:

(3.) THE first contention of Mr. Doabia, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is that by the resolution of the Municipal Committee, dated 28th March, 1969, the unauthorised act of the Executive Officer in filing the appeal, if at all it was unauthorised, was ratified and by the act of ratification, the appeal should be deemed to have been presented by a properly authorised agent. Mr. Bahri, learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the act of the Executive Officer was an illegal act and, therefore, there could be no ratification of that act. The rule seems to be firmly settled that an illegal act cannot be ratified.