MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Municipal Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968. Sri Pyare Lal is the President. The fourth respondent, Shri. Durga Singh Thakur, is one of the members of the Committee. By a letter dated December 29, 1969, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu District, Kasumpti, the fourth respondent submitted his resignation from the membership of the committee. The ground tar his resignation Was the decision of the Government turning down the vote of no confidence in the President. He stated that in case the Government was prepared to review its decision. he would withdraw his resignation. However, on March 17, 1970, even without any response from the Government the fourth respondent wrote to the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing his resignation. The Committee, on coming to know of that communication, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner that the notice of withdrawal was barred by time inasmuch as it had not been submitted within 15 days of the receipt of the application intimating the desire to resign office, and that the resignation should be deemed to have been accepted by the Government and, therefore, a fresh election for the vacant seat should be held. On April 29, 1970, the State Government sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner saying that as the fourth respondent had withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted, he continued to be a member of the Committee, and the President of the Committee should be directed to send notice of meetings to the fourth respondent as usual. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the President of the Committee. There was further correspondence on the subject, and the President of the Committee continued to protest that the resignation of the fourth respondent had taken effect. The matter was referred by the Deputy Commissioner to the Government. On November 30, 1970, the Committee was apprised the opinion of the State Government that the fourth respondent was free to withdraw his resignation even though the period of 15 days had expired, that the provision specifying that period was procedural only and not mandatory, and as the resignation had been withdrawn before it was accepted no question arose of accepting the resignation. Aggrieved by the position taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the State Government, the petitioner has applied for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act. Section 14 provides :

(3.) The Municipal Committee, with Which we are concerned, is a statutory body. It has been constituted for the purpose of discharging public functions. Under the Common law, therefore, its members cannot be said to enjoy an absolute right to resign at will. The law casts a duty upon them to act in the public interest, and it could work serious mischief if they were allowed to vacate office at will. The position was explained by Mr. Justice Bradley of the U. S. Supreme Court in Edward M Edwards v. United States, (1880) 26 Law Ed 314, as follows :-