MUNICIPALITY OF RATNAGIRI Vs. VASUDEV BALKRISHNA LOTLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit filed by the plaintiff who was formerly the Municipal Secretary of the Ratnagiri Municipality against that Municipality, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Assistant Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 167 of the District Municipalities Act. That section provides that:- No suit shall be commenced against any Municipality...for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such Municipality...one month s previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the date of the act complained of.

(2.) The suit was instituted more than six months after the dismissal of the plaintiff by the Municipality, and the question raised in the preliminary issue was whether the dismissal was something done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge held that it was done in pursuance of the District Municipalities Act, and that, therefore, the suit was out of time.

(3.) On appeal to the District Judge that decision was reversed and the case was remanded for hearing on the merits. The learned District Judge said:- I hold that Section 167 of the District Municipalities Act does not cover this case. That section is applicable in cases relating to anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of the Act. The test to be applied is not the nature of the suit or the subject-matter, but whether the cause of action was or was not connected with the exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon the Municipality. The employment and dismissal of servants are not acts done in pursuance of the Act within the meaning of this section.