Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mallesh Shivan Shetty, was elected as a councillor from Ward No. 42 of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation in October/November 2015. He filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23 March 2006 passed by the Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) disqualifying him under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The order was passed on a representation made by Respondent No. 3, Shri Narendra Krishnanath Gupte. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, and was a non-speaking order without application of mind. The respondents argued that the order was valid and within the Commissioner's powers. The High Court observed that the impugned order was cryptic and did not disclose any reasons. The Commissioner had not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing the disqualification order, which was a clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held that the power under Section 10(1D) must be exercised after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected councillor. The order was also found to be without jurisdiction as the Commissioner failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 23 March 2006, allowed the writ petition, and directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as a councillor. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Disqualification of Councillor - Section 10(1D) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Natural Justice - The Commissioner passed an order disqualifying the petitioner as a councillor without issuing any show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing. The High Court held that the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction, as the Commissioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 6-10) B) Municipal Law - Disqualification of Councillor - Section 10(1D) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Reasoned Order - The impugned order was a cryptic, non-speaking order without any application of mind. The Court held that the Commissioner must pass a reasoned order after considering all relevant material and after hearing the affected councillor. The order was set aside on this ground as well. (Paras 7-9) C) Municipal Law - Disqualification of Councillor - Section 10(1D) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Jurisdiction - The Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in passing the disqualification order without following the procedure prescribed under the Act. The Court held that the power under Section 10(1D) must be exercised strictly in accordance with law, and any deviation renders the order void. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of disqualification passed by the Commissioner under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without proper application of mind, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 23 March 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, and directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as a councillor. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- disqualification of councillor
- Section 10(1D) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act
- 1949
- jurisdiction of Commissioner
- reasoned order
- compliance with statutory requirements
