1967 (2) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds supersession order, dismisses writ petition based on valid grounds.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. Versus Babulal Kriparam Takkamore & Or.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition. It held that the supersession order was valid ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the show-cause notice and the supersession order dated September 29, 1965.2. Compliance with Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.3. Assessment of the grounds for supersession.4. Determination of the nature of the order under Section 408 (administrative or quasi-judicial).5. Impact of irrelevant grounds on the validity of the supersession order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice and the Supersession OrderThe appeal arises from a writ petition challenging the show-cause notice dated July 21, 1965, and the supersession order dated September 29, 1965, issued by the Government of Maharashtra to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The High Court quashed the supersession order, holding that the State Government exercised its power on grounds not reasonably related to its legitimate exercise and that the findings were rationally impossible based on the materials before the State Government.2. Compliance with Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948Section 408 allows the State Government to supersede the municipal corporation if it appears that the corporation is incompetent, persistently defaults in its duties, or abuses its powers. The State Government must provide an opportunity for the corporation to show cause unless it is an emergency. The order must be published in the Gazette with stated reasons. The High Court found that the State Government did not comply with these requirements as the grounds for supersession were not adequately substantiated.3. Assessment of the Grounds for SupersessionThe supersession order was based on two grounds:- First Ground: The corporation planned its expenditure on uncertain receipts and allowed its financial position to deteriorate. The High Court found that the show-cause notice did not mention this charge, and the corporation was not given an opportunity to explain it. The financial deterioration was not adequately proven as the corporation had paid salaries, and the dearness allowance was delayed due to bill scrutiny.- Second Ground: The corporation neglected to improve the water supply and provide sufficient water. The State Government required the corporation to meter the water supply and have a separate budget for water supply to guarantee a loan for water supply improvements. The corporation's resolution on July 12, 1965, did not accept these conditions, leading the State Government to conclude that the corporation was not competent.4. Determination of the Nature of the Order under Section 408The court considered whether the order under Section 408 was administrative or quasi-judicial. It was noted that the distinction was not material in this case as it was not an emergency, and the State Government was bound to give the corporation an opportunity to show cause.5. Impact of Irrelevant Grounds on the Validity of the Supersession OrderThe court examined whether the order could be sustained if one of the grounds was found irrelevant. Citing precedents, the court concluded that an order based on several grounds could be upheld if the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant grounds alone. The second ground regarding water supply was deemed sufficient for the State Government to form the opinion that the corporation was not competent.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition. It held that the supersession order was valid based on the second ground alone, despite the first ground being irrelevant. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.