MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KULLU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP No. 1515 of 203.

(2.) Our attention was drawn to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests Government of A.P. v. Collector and Ors., 2003 3 SCC 472. Even before this decision, in two cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 Supp4 SCC 541 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had laid down, as a proposition of law that the departments of the Central Government should not litigate in the Courts between or among themselves, because their straightway going to the Courts in litigation is an avoidable exercise and they also in the bargain incur heavy public expenditure on such avoidable litigation. In the aforesaid judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector and Ors. , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while referring to the aforesaid earlier two judgments in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission have now clearly spelt out, held and laid down, also as a proposition of law, that even with respect to the Departments of the State Government it is advisable and desirable, rather imperative, that these departments do not take recourse to litigation straightway and, instead they should approach the permanent Standing Committees constituted by the State Government for the resolution of the disputes or any controversy arising in between these various departments of the State, including the undertakings of the State. The following observations are apposite:

(3.) We are quite conscious of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the departments of the State, including the undertakings owned by the State. We are saying so because statutory bodies, such like the Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations etc. being wholly autonomous in character, are neither the departments of the State nor the undertakings owned by the State. We still feel that taking a cue from the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it will be advisable that even these statutory bodies, before taking recourse to litigation, should first approach the committee thus to be constituted by the State Government for airing their grievances before such a committee. Adopting such course of action shall avoid the incurring of huge public expenditure, because even though these statutory bodies may not be the departments or the undertakings of the State Government, yet the expenditure that they incur in litigation is public expenditure and the intention of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid these judgments was to ensure that incurring of public expenditure by all these bodies is avoided at all costs. There of course is a very big difference between the departments or undertakings of the Government and autonomous and totally independent statutory bodies and the difference is that whereas the decisions taken by the above referred committee are binding on the departments or undertakings of the Government the decisions may not be binding on these statutory bodies, but nonetheless such a course of action shall be an alternative remedy which these statutory bodies should avail of, because there always would be a chance, a positive and a definite chance, of some sort of amicable settlement being arrived at in the course of deliberations before the committee, or some sort of a compromise formula which will obviate the need of such autonomous statutory bodies taking recourse to litigation. Of course, if such statutory bodies ultimately feel that the decision arrived at by the committee is not to their liking or is not in conformity with the merits of their contention, they would always be at liberty to approach this Court by invoking this Courts extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.