Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 522 of 2020, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 2021

Law laid down -

1. Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - The personal presence of councilors who have submitted the proposal/resolution before the Collector is not necessary. The Collector is best suited to decide the mode of verification but personal presence of councilors is not a statutory requirement.

2. Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961- 3/4 number of councilors moved a proposal for recalling the President. They attended the hearing before the Collector on two occasions but the Collector was busy elsewhere. On third occasion only ten out of fourteen councilors remained present. Since personal presence is not a statutory requirement, rejection of proposal on this ground alone cannot be upheld.

3. Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The writ petition was filed assailing the said order of Collector by few of councilors who were signatories to the proposals. Few did not joined the petition. The validity of Collector's order can be examined in the petition filed by few councilors who are signatories to the proposal. Non-joining of petition by few of them will not defeat the writ petition.

4. Validity of order of Collector – is to be judged on the basis of reasons assigned in the said order (constitution bench judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill followed).

5. Practice and Procedure – The Learned Single Judge is bound by judgment of full bench – Distinction made by the learned Single Bench to distinguish the judgment of full bench is not based on the reasons on the strength of which the Collector has rejected the proposal.

6. Verification of proposal – It is within the province of the Collector. The Collector did not reject the proposal on the ground that no single document has been filed by the councilors for the purpose of verification of their signatures before the Collector. The learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition on this ground.

Basant Shravanekar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others.

For the Latest Updates Join Now