Can A Nominated Councillor Be Appointed As Leader Of The House Under Section 19-1A Of The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949?: Bombay High Court Answers

The Bombay High Court on Monday noted that in the face of plain language of legislation, rules of interpretation cannot be applied to impose a meaning not intended by the legislature. A bench of Justices A.A. SAYED and S.G. DIGE, in this light drew a distinction between 'elected Councillors' and 'nominated Councillors' with respect to becoming 'Leader of the House.' The Petitioner, Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar, Councillor elected at the Ward elections of the Pune Municipal Corporation held in February 2017 challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Leader of the House in the Pune Municipal Corporation ('the Corporation'). In the February 2017 Corporation elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 99 elected Councillors, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) secured 42 elected Councillors, Congress party and Shiv Sena secured 10 Municipal Councillors each. In terms of Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2012 Rules') in proportion to the strength of the House, BJP could nominate three Councillors, NCP could nominate one Councillor and Shiv Sena could nominate one Councillor. In 2017 Ward elections of the Corporation from Ward No.16 the Petitioner secured the highest number of votes and was elected to the Corporation. Regardless, BJP proposed Respondent No.1 for his appointment as nominated Councillor. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 was by way of resolution in a meeting of the Councillors of BJP appointed as Leader of the Party (BJP), later he came to be appointed as Leader of the House under section 19-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ('the said Act'). Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner has no locus standi. Petitioner belongs to the Congress Party and the Respondent No.1 belongs to BJP and the Petition is filed only in an attempt to settle political scores. The respondent relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2001) 4 SCC 734, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Charan Singh Sahu vs. Giani Zail Singh & Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 390. The bench observing that the Petitioner is essentially seeking a writ of quo warranto in seeking the prayer to quash the appointment of Respondent No.1 as Leader of the House, concluded that the Petitioner has locus standi. Reference was made to Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161 which states in paras 21 and 22 as follows: '21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as noonday that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or correctness of the action should not be allowed to have any entry, for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of quo warranto which is impermissible. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority. 22. While dealing with the writ of quo warranto another aspect has to be kept in view. Sometimes a contention is raised pertaining to doctrine of delay and laches in filing a writ of quo warranto. There is a difference pertaining to personal interest or individual interest on one hand and an interest by a citizen as a relator to the Court on the other. The principle of doctrine of delay and laches should not be allowed any play because the person holds the public office as a usurper and such continuance is to be prevented by the Court. The Court is required to see that the larger public interest and the basic concept pertaining to good governance are not thrown to the winds.' Section 19-1A lays down who can be appointed in the Corporation as the Leader of the House. It stipulates that only an 'elected Councillor' shall be eligible to be a Leader of the House. The entire controversy, therefore rests on the term `elected Councillor' appearing in section 19-1A. The bench referred to Illachi Devi (Dead) By LRs. & Ors. vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 413, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with interpretation of statutes, observed in paragraphs 40 to 44 as follows: "40 It is well settled principles of law that a plain meaning must be attributed to the statute. Also, a statute must be construed according to the intention of the legislature. The golden rule of interpretation of a statute is that it has to be given its literal...

Can A Nominated Councillor Be Appointed As Leader Of The House Under Section 19-1A Of The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949?: Bombay High Court Answers

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Can A Nominated Councillor Be Appointed As Leader Of The House Under Section 19-1A Of The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949?: Bombay High Court Answers

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers