MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE YAMUNA NAGAR Vs. SUKHMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Municipal Committee, Yamunanagar and its three functionaries are the petitioners. The trial Court restrained them from implementing the Budget passed on March, 24, 1993. The appeal having been dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present revision petition. The sequence of events may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE Municipal Committee had constituted a Finance Sub-Commitee as contemplated under the 'account Code'. A meeting of this Finance Sub-Committee was fixed for January 5, 1993 to consider the budget proposals. Members of the Sub-Committee did nol attend the meeting. The meeting was again fixed for January 13, 1993. The members did not meet even this time. Finally, on January 30, 1993, the term of the Finance Sub-Committee expired. The Committee did not constitute a fresh Finance Sub-Committee. Faced with this situation, the President on March 9, 1993 invoked his emergency powers under Section 35 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and submitted the Budget proposals to the Committee. On March 24, 1993, the Municipal Committee accepted the proposal. This was approved by the Commissioner, Ambaia Division, on June 19, 1993.

(3.) ON April 22, 1993, five Municipal Commissioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (the present petitioners) from implementing the decision regarding the Budget. Along with, they filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for the grant of a temporary injunction. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court. The petitioners filed an appeal. The learned appellate Court inter alia found that "the President has wrongly invoked the emergency provisions of Section 35 of the Act and passed the budget on 9-3-93. Its subsequent approval by the committee vide resolution dt. 24-3-93 cannot rectify the illegal act of the President. " Consequently, it held that "the legal procedure, prescribed under the Act, has not been followed and the action of the President is, therefore, patently wrong. It will cause great loss to the State exchequer. The public is also, therefore, interested along with the present plaintiffs, who arc municipal commissions. " Accordingly, it up held the decision of the trial Court and affirmed the order of temporary injunction passed by it. The petitioners challenge this order as being wholly illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act as well as the Account Code.