Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the promotion of respondent No.5, A.T. Shintre, as Director. They alleged that the promotion was illegal, malafide, arbitrary, and ultra vires the statutory provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The impugned Resolution No.1097 dated 27-1-2010, passed by the MCGM upon a proposal dated 7-1-2010 from the Municipal Commissioner, and an office order dated 31-12-2009 appointing respondent No.5 were challenged. The court heard the parties and perused the record. The court found that the promotion violated Section 54A of the Act and was therefore ultra vires. The court set aside the resolution and office order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Promotion - Ultra Vires - Section 54A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Promotion of respondent No.5 challenged as illegal and arbitrary - Court held that the promotion was ultra vires the statutory provisions and set aside the resolution and office order (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the promotion of respondent No.5 as Director under Section 54A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is illegal, malafide, arbitrary and ultra vires the statutory provisions.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, setting aside Resolution No.1097 dated 27-1-2010 and the office order dated 31-12-2009 appointing respondent No.5 as Director.
Law Points
- Promotion must comply with statutory provisions
- Ultra vires action is void
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 54A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 84
Writ Petition (L) No.304 of 2010
J. N. Patel, A.P. Bhangale
M.I. Sethana (Senior Advocate) i/b S. N. Pillai for Petitioner; R. S. Apte (Senior Advocate) with V. S. Gharpure for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4; V. A. Sawant for Respondent No.5
Madhukar M. Kamble and D.L. Shinde
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Municipal Commissioner, Addl. Municipal Commissioner (Eastern Suburb), Dy. Municipal Commissioner (G.A.), and A.T. Shintre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging promotion of respondent No.5.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash Resolution No.1097 dated 27-1-2010 and office order dated 31-12-2009 appointing respondent No.5 as Director.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the promotion of respondent No.5 was illegal, malafide, arbitrary, and ultra vires the statutory provisions.
Issues
Whether the promotion of respondent No.5 is ultra vires Section 54A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the promotion was illegal, malafide, arbitrary, and ultra vires. Respondents waived service and consented to hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
Promotion of respondent No.5 was ultra vires the statutory provisions of Section 54A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and therefore illegal and arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailed the promotion of respondent No.5, Shri A. T. Shintre, by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as illegal, malafide, arbitrary and ultravires the statutory provisions while impugning the Resolution No.1097, dated 27-1-2010, passed by the MCGM upon the proposal dated 7-1-2010 from the Municipal Commissioner and an office order dated 31-12-2009 appointing respondent No.5 as the Director in view of Section 54A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Procedural History
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule was issued, and by consent, the matter was heard forthwith. The court reserved judgment on 1st April 2010 and pronounced on 6th April 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 54A
- Constitution of India: Article 226
