Chandrashekhar @ Balasaheb Maruti Barote vs Ahmednagar Municipal Council and others

N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.—This writ petition raises a question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 51-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, referred to as "the said Act"). The relevant part of the said provision is as under;

51-A(1)(a) Every Council shall have a Vice-President, who shall be appointed by the President from amongst the elected Councillors, before the first meeting convened by him is held, or as the case may be, within seven days from the date on which the vacancy in the office of Vice-President occurs due to any reason.

(4) The Vice-president shall hold office of Vice-President for one year from date of his appointment or for the residue of his term as Councillor, whichever is earlier, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section and of section 55-A and other provisions of this Act and shall be eligible for re appointment.

Petitioner Chandrashekhar Maruti Barote is an elected Councillor or the Ahmednagar Municipal Council. He was appointed as Vice-President of the said Council from 24th December 1997 by Shri Deep Narayan Chavan, the then President of the said Council. On an application filed by one Shri S.H. Ghule, the petitioner was adjudged disqualified u/s 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member''s Disqualification Act, 1987 by the Collector, Ahmednagar, by an order dated 8th June 1998. Since a vacancy had occurred in the office of the Vice-President, the President appointed one Dattatraya Thakaji Wakle as Vice-President with effect from 16th June 1998. The order of the Collector, dated 8th June 1998, was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2347 of 1998 before this Court; and order of disqualification came to be stayed by this Court. After this order was passed by this Court on 19-6-1998, the newly appointed Vice-President Wakle resigned the office of the Vice-President; and the petitioner again came to be appointed to that office by the President with effect from 2nd July 1998. Election to the office of the President took place in the meantime; and the new President, Mrs. Lata Basant Lodha, appointed one Shaikh Liaquat Abdullah respondent No. 6 as the Vice-President of the said Council with effect from 19th December 1998.

It is contended by the petitioner that by virtue of the new appointment made on 2nd July 1998, he gets a fresh term of one year in view of the provisions of section 51-A(4) of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that sub-section (4) gives a substantial right to the appointed Vice-President to be in the office for a period of one year from the date of the appointment and since the Vice-President is eligible for reappointment, every new appointment made shall be for a period of one year and can be terminated earlier only with the prior approval of the State Government. In the instant case, there is no prior approval for termination of the petitioner''s appointment and, therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 6 made by the new President will not be effective until the expiry of the petitioner''s term.

Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the statutory provisions, as they stand today, it is necessary to note that before the amendment made in the said Act in the year 1994, the term of the office of the President was coterminous with the term of the elected Councillors, meaning thereby that it was for a period of five years. By Maharashtra Act No. 41 of 1994, section 52 of the said Act was amended and the President''s term of office was reduced to one year. Before the term was reduced, a President, enjoying a term of five years, could appoint as many as five Vice-Presidents and every Vice-President was for a period of one year. Now, the President''s term itself has been reduced to one year. However, the statute does not specifically lay down that the term of the office of the Vice-President shall be coterminous with the term of the President, who has appointed him. On the basis of this statutory anomaly, it is contended by the petitioner that he has a right to continue in office for a period of one year from the date of the appointment.

The post of the Vice-President is to be filled in by appointment and the President has a right to appoint any of the Councillors as Vice-President. Therefore, the appointment of the President is the origin of authority for a Vice-President to be in office. The Vice-President is not elected by the Councillors to that office; but he is appointed by the President. When an office is filled in by the appointment, it is normally at the pleasure of the appointing authority, unless the statute and the rules made thereunder provide otherwise.

To prevent frequent removals of the Vice-Presidents, the Legislature thought it fit to require the prior approval for the termination of the Vice-President. Sub-section (1)(a) of section 51-A of the said Act, which authorises the President to appoint a Vice-President from amongst the elected Councillors before the first meeting convened by him is held, or, within seven days on which the vacancy in the office of the Vice-President occurs due to any reason, gives a right to every President to have Vice-President of his own choice. If we accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, that would create an anomalous situation, wherein, a President-elect may not have a right to appoint a Vice-President, which is his duty under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 51-A of the said Act. A President, before laying down the office, may ask the earlier appointed Vice-President to resign and then appoint a new or the same man as the Vice-President by a fresh order and; if it is interpreted that even that appointment would last for another year, it would nullify the statutory right given to the President by section 51-A(1)(a) of the said Act.

For this purpose, therefore, the scheme laid down u/s 51-A of the said Act will have to be read as a whole.

A President has a right to appoint a Vice-President and the Vice-President''s tenure can be terminated at any time with the prior approval of the State Government, are the main provisions of this scheme. Sub-section (4) of section 51-A of the said Act, which still remains on the statute book in the old form in which it was enacted before the amendment, giving one year''s term of office to the Vice-President from the date of his appointment will not, by itself, negate the substantive provisions of section 51-A(1)(a). A provision will have to be read reasonably and overlooking the anomalies created by the amendments even when there are ho consequential amendments in other part of the statute, which form one single scheme. In fact, this part of subsection (4) of section 51-A of the said Act has now become otiose, due to amendments made in the year 1994 in the other part of section 51-A.

We, therefore, do not find that the petitioner is entitled for continuation in the office of the Vice-President for a period of one year from the date of his new appointment from 2nd July, 1998.

Shri Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to sub-section (6) of section 51-A of the said Act, which reads as under:

If the office of the President becomes vacant earlier due to any reason, the Vice-president may continue to hold his office for the residue of his term under sub-section (4).

Sri Dixit wants us to read this provision to mean that even when the President appointing the Vice-President has ceased to be in office and the new President has taken over, the Vice-President appointed by the ex-President will continue to be in office, in view of sub-section (6). We do not find this to be a valid interpretation, if regard is had to the entire scheme of section 51-A of the said Act. Sub-section (6), according to us, will come into play only in cases wherein the office of the President has become vacant due to some reason, like that of removal by the State Government or by the Councilors ;and new elected President has not as yet assumed the office. As soon as the new President assumes the office, a right vested in him by the statute to appoint a Vice-President will come into operation and it cannot be defeated by reading sub-section (6) in the manner in which Shri Dixit wants us to do. Sub-section (6) will be operative only when the office of the President is vacant; and the Vice-president may continue to hold the office and look after the business entrusted to him; but this will not give a fresh entitlement to continue in office even after the President exercises his right u/s 51-A(1)(a) of the said Act.

In the view which we have taken, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is, therefore, summarily rejected.

Writ petition rejected.