Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dayal Shankardas Harchandani and Others, challenged an order dated 7th December 2004 passed by the State Government under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, rescinding Resolution No.4 dated 19th May 2004 of the Municipal Corporation for the City of Ulhasnagar. The background involves an earlier order dated 7th July 2003 by the Municipal Commissioner regarding computation of rateable value for new buildings, which was later cancelled by the General Body's Resolution No.4. The State Government, upon application by the Commissioner, rescinded the resolution. The petitioners contended that the impugned order did not record the subjective satisfaction or reasons required as a condition precedent under Section 451. The court examined the language of Section 451, which empowers the State Government to rescind a resolution if it is of opinion that the resolution is not in the interest of the municipal government or the public. The court held that the condition precedent for exercising power under Section 451 is the formation of an opinion by the State Government, which must be recorded in the order. The impugned order was cryptic and did not indicate any such satisfaction or reasons. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Rescission of Resolution - Section 451 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Condition Precedent - The State Government must record its opinion or subjective satisfaction that the resolution is not in the interest of the municipal government or the public before exercising power under Section 451. The impugned order failed to record such satisfaction, rendering it invalid. (Paras 5-6)
B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - Requirement of Reasons - Section 451 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - An order under Section 451 must be a speaking order containing reasons for rescinding the resolution. The cryptic order without reasons is unsustainable. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's order under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 rescinding a resolution of the Municipal Corporation is valid when it does not record the subjective satisfaction or reasons as required by the section
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 7th December 2004 passed by the State Government under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Law Points
- Section 451 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
- 1949 requires recording of subjective satisfaction and reasons before rescinding a resolution of a municipal corporation
- failure to do so renders the order invalid
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 91
WRIT PETITION NO.2981 OF 2005
A.S. Oka, Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi
Shri Amol P. Mhatre for the Petitioners, Shri Vijay D. Patil for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri Manish M. Pabale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4
Dayal Shankardas Harchandani and Others
Municipal Corporation for the City of Ulhasnagar and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the validity of an order passed by the State Government under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 rescinding a resolution of the Municipal Corporation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order dated 7th December 2004 passed by the State Government.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the order on the ground that it did not record the subjective satisfaction or reasons required under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Previous Decisions
The Municipal Commissioner passed an order on 7th July 2003 regarding computation of rateable value. The General Body passed Resolution No.4 on 19th May 2004 cancelling the earlier order and directing assessment based on 1996-97 rates. The State Government rescinded Resolution No.4 by order dated 7th December 2004.
Issues
Whether the impugned order under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is valid when it does not record the subjective satisfaction or reasons as required by the section.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the impugned order does not record the opinion or subjective satisfaction of the State Government, which is a condition precedent for exercising power under Section 451.
The petitioners further argued that the order is cryptic and without reasons, and therefore unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The condition precedent for exercising power under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is the formation of an opinion by the State Government that the resolution is not in the interest of the municipal government or the public. This opinion must be recorded in the order. The impugned order, being cryptic and without recording such satisfaction or reasons, is invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The first ground is that the opinion or subjective satisfaction which is required to be recorded by the State Government as a condition precedent for the exercise of the powers under Section 451 of the said Act has not been recorded.
The second ground is that a cryptic order without recording reasons cannot be passed for rescinding the resolution.
Procedural History
The Municipal Commissioner passed an order on 7th July 2003 regarding rateable value. The General Body passed Resolution No.4 on 19th May 2004 cancelling the order. The Commissioner applied to the State Government on 7th December 2004 to rescind the resolution. The State Government passed the impugned order rescinding the resolution. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2981 of 2005 challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: Section 451
