Surjit Mehta and others vs The State of Haryana and others

Replication taken on the record.

Arguments heard. Surjit Mehta and four others President and office bearers of the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar have filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing order of the Deputy Commissioner dated March 3, 1992 Annexure P/1 vide which Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 246 of the Haryana Municipal Act has suspended the execution of the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar on January 30, 1992 and further ordered prohibiting the doing of any act which was about to be done or was being done in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution. A meeting of the Municipal Committee, in fact, was held on January 30, 1992. According to the petitioners some of the members left the meeting and the remaining 18 members passed the resolution which is Annexure P-2. The stand of the respondents is that in fact meeting was called, however, there was commotion in the meeting and members exchanged blows and ultimately dispersed. No meeting was held in the premises of the Municipal Committee. Subsequently proceedings were prepared and got signed by the members by taking the register to their respective houses. An inquiry was also held and as per report of the Enquiry Officer, no meeting of the Committee took place and the resolution Annexure P-2 was in fact not passed and the Deputy Commissioner was, thus, justified in suspending the resolution by passing the impugned order.

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that S. 246 of the Haryana Municipal Act was not attracted to the case in hand, and the Deputy Commissioner could not suspend the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee. S. 246 of the Act is reproduced as under :--

"246. Powers of suspend any resolution or order of Committee-- The Deputy Commissioner may, by order in writing suspend the execution of any resolution or order of a committee, or joint committee or prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be done, or is being done in pursuance of or under cover of this Act, or in pursuance of any sanction or permission granted by the Committee in the exercise of its powers under this Act, if, in his opinion the resolution order or act is in excess of the powers conferred by law or contrary to the interest of the public or likely to cause waste or damage of municipal funds or property, or the execution of the resolution or order, or the doing of the Act, is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, to encourage lawlessness, or it causes injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body of persons."

A bare reading of the provision aforesaid would show that power was given to the Deputy Commissioner to suspend resolution or orders passed by the Municipal Committee, if its implementation was going to cause waste or damage of the Municipal funds or property or execution of such a resolution or order was likely to lead to a breach of peace or to encourage lawlessness or to cause injury or annyoance to the public. The nature of the resolution adopted by the Municipal Committee as contained in Annexure P-2 does not indicate that implementation thereof was in any manner likely to cause breach of peace etc. as contemplated under S. 246 of the Act. Some of the resolutions related to making appointments on certain posts in the Municipal Committee and some related to payment of money to the Government of loan etc. That being the position the order of the Deputy Commissioner purporting to have been passed under S. 246 of the Act cannot be sustained.

Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has argued that since on inquiry it was found that no meeting actually had taken place the Deputy Commissioner could suspend the so-called resolution subsequently passed by the Members. This contention again cannot be accepted. As to whether any resolution was in fact passed or the same was passed in different manner could be considered at the time of confirmation of the minutes of the meeting in the subsequent meeting of the Municipal Committee. The total strength of the members of the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar is 32, and the quorum for the meeting is 1/3rd of the Members of the Committee as provided under S. 27 of the Act. The resolution passed by the Municipal Committee, purporting to be signed by 18 members, would be as passed by the majority with full quorum. Such resolution or decision could not be suspended or revoked by Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under S. 246 of the Act on the ground either that no such meeting was held or that resolution was not passed in the manner suggested. The Deputy Commissioner was conscious of the provisions of S. 246 of the Act as he in the operative portion of the order Annexure P-l has stated while suspending the resolution, prohibiting the doing of any Act under the resolution aforesaid but the order is silent that by implementation of the resolution aforesaid any breach of peace etc, was likely to occur.

For the reasons recorded above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner Annexure P-l is quashed with the result the consequential order passed u/s 255 of the Act appointing an officer to hear the objections in House Tax matter also stand quashed. There will be no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.