Ultra vires municipal dismissal orders fall outside special limitation protection and cannot be saved by statutory notice bars.

A dismissal order signed by a person who had not been shown to be appointed by the Government as acting Municipal Commissioner was held to be without authority and therefore invalid. The Court also held that the municipal Act's special limitation and notice protection applied only to acts done or purported to be done under the Act by authorised municipal , and could not shield an order wholly without jurisdiction. Because that statutory bar had to be specifically pleaded and rested on a legally sustainable basis, the suit was not governed by the special six-month limitation and remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal order passed by a person acting in place of the Municipal Commissioner was valid under the municipal statute; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by the special limitation and notice provisions of the municipal Act.

Issue (i): Whether the dismissal order passed by a person acting in place of the Municipal Commissioner was valid under the municipal statute;

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909 could be exercised only if there was an appointment by the Government of a person to act as Commissioner. On the facts found, no Government order appointing the person who signed the dismissal order as acting Commissioner was produced. The dismissal was therefore made by a person without the requisite authority.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was invalid and without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by the special limitation and notice provisions of the municipal Act.

Analysis: Section 135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909 protected only acts done or purported to be done under the Act by the specified municipal authorities. A statutory bar of that kind had to be specifically pleaded, and it was inapplicable where the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction. The Court applied the same principle reflected in the earlier municipal-tax decision under Section 48 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, namely that acts wholly beyond jurisdiction do not receive statutory protection. The suit was therefore not governed by the special six-month bar.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 135(2) and was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed because the impugned dismissal lacked authority and the special municipal limitation defence was unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory protection or special limitation applicable to acts done under an Act does not extend to an order made wholly without jurisdiction, and such a defence must be founded on a properly pleaded and legally sustainable statutory basis.

---