1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9970    OF 2018  (arising out of)

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25814 OF 2018)

Shailesh Bandu Swami and Another …… Appellant

Versus

Dipak and Others ..…. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9971-9972    OF 2018  (arising out of)

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.24936-24937 OF 2018)  

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. These  appeals  question the correctness  of  the  Judgment  and Order

dated 05.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench

at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6897 of 2018.  

2

3. Matters  pertaining  to  elections  to  Municipal  Corporations  in

Maharashtra including those relating to constitution of Standing Committees

of such Municipal Corporations are dealt  with by Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).   Provisions of

Sections 20, 21, 31A and 35A which are relevant for the present purposes are

quoted for ready reference:-

“20. Constitution of Standing Committee.-  (1) The Standing Committee shall consist of sixteen councillors.

(2) The Corporation shall at its first meeting after general elections  appoint sixteen  persons  out  of  its  own body to  be members of the Standing Committee.

(3) One-half of the members of the Standing Committee shall retire every succeeding year at noon on the first day of the month in which the first meeting of the Corporation mentioned in sub-section (2) was held:

Provided that all the members of the Standing Committee in office when general elections are held shall retire from office on the election of a new Committee under sub-section (2).

(4) The members who shall retire under sub-section (3) one year after their election under sub-section (2) shall be selected by lot at such time previous to the date for retirement specified in sub-section (3) and in  such manner as the Chairman of the Standing Committee may determine, and in succeeding years the members who shall retire under this section shall be those who have been longest in office :

Provided  that,  in  the  case  of  a  member  who  has  been reappointed, the term of his office for the purposes of this sub- section shall be computed from the date of his reappointment.

3 (5) The Corporation shall at its meeting held in the month preceding the date of retirement specified in sub-section (3) ap- point fresh members of the Standing Committee to fill the of- fices of those who are due to retire on the said date.

(6) Any  Councillor  who  ceases  to  be  a  member  of  the Standing Committee shall be eligible for reappointment.

21. Appointment of  Chairman of  Standing Committee.- (1) The Standing Committee shall at its first meeting after its appointment under sub-section (2) of section 20 and at its first meeting in the same month in each succeeding year appoint one of its own member to be the Chairman.

(2) The  Chairman  shall hold  office until  his  successor  has been  appointed under sub-section (1) but shall be eligible for reappointment.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions  of  sub-sections  (1)  and (2) the Chairman shall vacate office as soon as he ceases to be a member of the Committee.

(4) If any casual vacancy occurs in the office of the Chair- man,  the  Standing Committee  shall,  as  soon as  conveniently may be after the occurrence of the vacancy, appoint one of its member to fill such vacancy and every Chairman so appointed shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he is appointed would have held it if such vacancy had not occurred.

(5)  If  for  any  reason  the  Standing  Committee  does  not appoint  the  Chairman  under  sub-section  (1)  or  (4),  within  a period of  thirty days from the date of its appointment under sub-section (2) of section 20, or from the date following the date of retirement of one-half of the members specified in sub- section (3) of that section, or from the date on which a casual vacancy occurs in the office of Chairman, as the case may be, the appointment of the Chairman, after the expiry of the said period, shall  be made by the Corporation, from amongst the members of the Standing  Committee, at a special meeting called and held for the purpose within fifteen days  from the expiry of the said period of thirty days. At such meeting, the question  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  votes  of  the Councillors present and voting and if there be an equality of votes, the presiding authority shall have and exercise a second

4 or casting vote. Every Chairman so appointed, shall continue in office so long only as the Chairman appointed by the Standing Committee would have continued in office.

… … …

31A. Appointment by nomination on Committees to be by proportional  representation.-  (1)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in this Act or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder, in  the  case  of  the  following Committees,  except  where  it  is provided by this Act, that the appointment of a Councillor to any Committee  shall  be  by virtue  of  his  holding any office, appointment  of  Councillors  to  these  Committees,  whether  in regular or casual vacancies, shall be made by the Corporation by nominating Councillors in accordance with the provisions of sub-section(2):-

(a) Standing Committee; (b)Transport Committee; (c) Any special Committee appointed under Section 30; (d)Any ad hoc Committee appointed under Section 31.

(2)  In  nominating  the  Councillors  on  the  Committee,  the Corporation shall take into account the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or groups and nominate members, as nearly as may be, in proportion to the strength of such parties or groups in the Corporation, after consulting the Leader of the House, the Leader of Opposition and the leader of each such party or group:

Provided  that,  the  relative  strength  of  the  recognized parties or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front shall be calculated by first dividing the total number of Councillors by the total strength of members of the Committee.  The number of Councillors  of  the  recognized parties  or  registered  parties  or groups  or  aghadi or  front  shall  be  further  divided  by  the quotient of this division.  The figures so arrived at shall be the relative  strength  of  the  respective  recognized  parties  or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front.  The seats shall

5 be  allotted  to  the  recognized  parties  or  registered  parties  or groups or aghadi or front by first considering the whole number of  their  respective  relative  strength  so  ascertained.   After allotting the seats in this manner, if one or more seats remain to be  allotted,  the  same  shall  be  allotted  one  each  to  the recognized parties or registered parties or groups or  aghadi or front  in  the  descending  order  of  the  fraction  number  in  the respective relative strength, starting from the highest  fraction number in the relative strength, till all the seats are allotted:

Provided  further  that,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or groups under this Act,  the recognized parties or registered parties or groups, or elected Councillors not belonging to any such party or group may, notwithstanding anything contained in the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Members’  Disqualification Act,  1986,  within  a  period  of  one  month  from  the  date  of notification of election results, form the aghadi or front and, on its registration, the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a registered pre-poll aghadi or front.

(3) If  any  question  arises  as  regards  the  number  of Councillors to be nominated on behalf of such party or group, the decision of the Corporation shall be final.

…   … …

35A.  Exercise  of  powers  and discharge  of  duties  of  any Committee  by  Corporation.- If,  any  committee  or  special committee under this Act is not constituted at any point of time, or for any reason not in a position to exercise its  powers or discharge its duties under this Act, its powers shall be exercised and its duties shall be discharged by the Corporation until such committee is constituted or in a position to exercise its powers or discharge its duties.”

4. The aforesaid provisions thus contemplate:-

6 In terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20, the Corporation in its first

meeting after general elections is obliged to appoint 16 persons out of its

own body to be members of the Standing Committee.  As per Sub-Section

(1) of Section 21 soon after its constitution, the Standing Committee is to

appoint one of its own members as its Chairman.  In terms of Sub-Section

(3) of Section 20, one-half of the members namely 8 out of 16 would retire

every  succeeding  year  on  the  first  day  of  the  month  in  which  the  first

meeting of the Corporation was held.  Sub-Section (4) then contemplates a

process under which the names of those eight persons who would so retire in

the succeeding year are to be identified.  Their names are to be selected by

lot  in  such  manner  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Standing  Committee  may

determine.   Such selection  has  to  be  undertaken previous  to  the  date  of

retirement  as  specified  in  Sub-Section  (3).   Naturally  the  action  to  be

contemplated  in  terms  of  Sub-Section  (4)  of  Section  20 must  be  by the

Chairman who was holding office in terms of appointment under Section 21.

In terms of sub-section (5) of Section 20, it is the Corporation which must

appoint fresh members of the Standing Committee in the month preceding

the date of retirement as specified in sub-section (3).

According to Section 21, the appointment of a Chairman could be in

three contingencies.  The first part of Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 deals

7 with the first meeting of the Standing Committee wherein the appointment

of  a  Chairman  has  to  be  undertaken  from amongst  the  members  of  the

Standing Committee.  The second part of Sub-Section 21(1) contemplates

similar such exercise to be undertaken in the successive years as and when

the constitution of  the Standing Committee  would undergo change as  a

result of one-half of the body getting retired and fresh elections to fill those

vacancies taking place.  The third contingency is one which is spoken of in

Sub-Section (4) of Section 21 when any casual vacancies were to arise in the

office of the Chairman.  Sub-Section (5) of Section 21 then contemplates a

situation where no appointment of the Chairman is undertaken in terms of

both limbs of Sub-Section (1) or under Sub-Section (4) of Section 21 and

empowers the Corporation to take appropriate steps in such cases.

Section  31A stipulates  a  salutary  principle  that  appointments  by

nomination  on  Committees  of  the  Corporation  must  be  undertaken  in

accordance with proportional representation and not by pure majority in the

house.

Section 35A gives general power to the Corporation to discharge the

duties as exercisable  by any Committee in case such Committee or  Sub-

Committee is not constituted at any point of time or is not in a position to

exercise its powers or discharge its duties under the Act.

8

5. In the present case we are concerned with the constitution of Standing

Committee in respect of Latur City Municipal Corporation, Latur.  As per

record1, Latur City Municipal Corporation has 18 Wards and 70 councillors

are  elected.   In  the  general  election  held  in  the  year  2017,  36  elected

members were from Bharatiya Janta Party, 33 members were from Indian

National Congress Party and one member was from Nationalist  Congress

Party.  In terms of Section 31-A of the Act, 8 members from Bharatiya Janta

party and 8 members from Nationalist Congress Party were nominated to be

the members of the Standing Committee.  The first meeting of the Standing

Committee was held on 22.05.2017 in which by draw of lots,  a  member

from  Indian  National  Congress  Party  was  elected  as  Chairman  of  the

Standing Committee.  The first meeting having been held in the month of

May 2017, in terms of Section 20(1) of the Act as stated hereinabove, the

Chairman of the Standing Committee was obliged to select by lot before the

expiry of the term namely first day of the month of the succeeding year that

is to say before 01.05.2018, names of 8 persons who would retire by rotation

as members of the Standing Committee.

6. It  however  appears  that  because  of  biennial  elections  of  Local

Authorities constituency namely Latur-Osmanabad-Beed to elect members

1Para 5 of Writ Petition No. 6897 of 2018

9 of  Maharashtra  Legislative  Council  which were  scheduled  to  be  held  on

21.04.2018,  the  Election  Commission  of  India  had  imposed  “code  of

conduct” with effect from 20.04.2018 which as a matter of fact continued to

be in operation till 31.05.20182.  It is thus a matter of record that no steps

were taken by the Chairman of the Standing Committee to identify those

who would  retire  in  terms  of  Section  20(3).  01.05.2018 being  a  holiday

namely Maharashtra Day, a meeting of Latur City Municipal Corporation

was held on 02.05. 2018 pursuant to the intimation dated 26.04.2018 issued

by the District Collector instructing the Commissioner of the Corporation to

call such meeting.  All the members of the Standing Committee including

the Chairman were present.  The minutes of the meeting indicate that in the

presence of all the members it was decided to identify names of the retiring

members by lots. Consequently 16 chits were kept in a pot and 8 chits were

drawn representing names of those 8 members who would retire in terms of

Section  20(3)  of  the  Act.   Those  8  members  included  the  name  of  the

Chairman of the Standing Committee himself.  However since the “code of

conduct”  was  still  in  operation  the  next  stage  contemplated  by  the  Act

namely to  have  fresh  appointment  of  8  new incoming members  was not

undertaken.  The “code of conduct” was in operation till 31.05.2018 and the

2 Para 20 of the counter affidavit in aforesaid writ petition by the Mayor, Latur City  Municipal Corporation

10 Municipal  Corporation  received  an  intimation  after  it  ceased  to  be  in

operation.  Soon thereafter, on 06.06.2018 the Municipal Secretary of the

Corporation  prepared  Agenda  and  issued  notices  regarding  meeting

scheduled to be held on 14.06.20183.

7. A notice was also issued on 12.06.2018 to all elected Councillors that

a meeting would be held on 15.06.2018 for election of the Chairman of the

Standing  Committee  in  terms  of  Section  21(5)  of  the  Act.   Since  by

12.06.2018, names of incoming 8 members of the Standing Committee were

still not known, notices were sent to all the members of the Corporation.  In

its meeting dated 14.06.2018, the respective political parties through their

block  leaders  submitted  names  of  the  Councillors  who  would  now  be

incoming  or  new members.   True  translation  of  the  proceedings  of  said

meeting dated 14.06.2018 is as under:-

“The  block  leaders  from  the  respective  parties  have submitted  the  names  of  the  corporation  members,  by nominations  by  comparing  as  per  their  seats,  for  Standing Committee by certifying representative as per the Section 31 A for 8 posts of Standing Committee vacated as per the Section 20(3)  of  the  Maharashtra  Municipal  Corporations  Act  1949 therefore,  the  Mayor  has  declared  the  names  of  following  8 members appointed as the standing committee members.

Sr.No. Name  of  Hon. Member

Name of Party Name  of  Block leader

1. Meena Goroba Indian  National Adv. Sul Deepak 3Para 22 of the counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition filed by Mayor, Latur  Municipal Corporation

11 Lokhande Congress Gangadhar.

2. Imran  Jabbar Sayyad

Indian  National Congress

Adv. Sul Deepak Gangadhar.

3. Kamble Kailas Vyankatrao

Indian  National Congress

Adv. Sul Deepak Gangadhar.

4. Sabade Vijaykumar Hanmantrao

Indian  National Congress

Adv. Sul Deepak Gangadhar.

5. Panchakshari Pooja Subhash

Indian  National Congress

Adv. Sul Deepak Gangadhar.

6. Sapana Pandurang Kiswe

Indian  National Congress

Adv. Sul Deepak Gangadhar.

7. Shailesh Bandu Swami

Bharatiya Janata Party

Adv.  Shailesh Prakash Gojamgunde.

8. Malu  Shital Shivrprasad

Bharatiya Janata Party

Adv.  Shailesh Prakash Gojamgunde.

Sd/- (Pawar Suresh Nivrutti)

Latur City Municipal Corporation, Latur.”

8. The names of incoming members show that since 6 outgoing members

were from one political party, it had nominated 6 persons to be part of the

incoming group of 8 new members of Standing Committee.  Thus by virtue

of such nomination, the balance as it existed earlier was again maintained.

Since the Standing Committee was now re-constituted,  in the subsequent

meeting held on the next day i.e. 15.06.2018 the entire body of 16 members

of the Standing Committee then elected one of its  own members namely

12 Shailesh  Prakash  Gojamgunde  to  be  the  Chairman  of  the  Standing

Committee.

9.     Soon thereafter, Writ Petition No.6897 of 2018 was filed by two

Councillors (one of them being Block Leader who had submitted names of

his  party members  to  be part  of  the Standing Committee in  the meeting

dated 14.06.2018) of Latur City Municipal Corporation submitting inter alia

that the notice issued on 12.06.2018 for holding the meeting to elect  the

Chairman of the Standing Committee on 15.06.2018 was inadequate and that

before issuance  of  such notice  there had to  be a  Standing Committee in

existence which, as a matter of fact, was not so.  The petition prayed inter

alia for following reliefs:-

“ A) Call for record and proceedings of the case.

B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate in the nature of order and direction to quash and set aside the election  of  Chairman  of  Standing  Committee  dated 15.06.2018 being contrary to the provisions of law.

C) Issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate in the nature of order and direction to quash and set aside the appointment  of  fresh  members  in  meeting  dated 14.06.2018 being contrary to the provisions of law.

D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, kindly grant stay to the election of Chairman of Standing Committee  dated  15.06.2018  being  contrary  to  the provisions of law.

13 E) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,

kindly  be  restrained  the  Chairman  of  Standing Committee from taking any policy decision.

F) By  allowing  this  Writ  Petition,  may  kindly  be disqualified the respondent No.6 from the post of mayor as he has misused his post and power.

G) Ad-interim relief  be  granted  in  terms of  prayer  clause “D” and “E”.

Thus, the challenge was to the meetings held on 14.06.2018 and 15.06.2018.

However,  no  challenge  was  raised  in  respect  of  meeting  held  on  02.05.2018

wherein names of 8 outgoing members were identified.  Though the election held

on  14.06.2018  to  the  Standing  Committee  was  put  in  challenge,  none  of  the

Councillors appointed as new members of the Standing Committee in its meeting

dated 14.06.2018 was made party to the petition.  

10. Affidavits  in  reply  opposing the  petition  were  filed  by respondent  No.6,

namely,  the Mayor of the Latur City Municipal  Corporation and by respondent

No.7 Shailesh Prakash Gojamgunde, Chairman of the Standing Committee elected

on 15.06.2018.   

11. After hearing learned counsel,  the High Court  by its  judgment and order

dated 05.09.2018  allowed said Writ Petition.  It was observed by the High Court

that as on 12.06.2018 when notice was issued to hold a meeting on 15.06.2018 the

Standing Committee consisting of 16 members had not come into existence; that

14 mandatory requirements of Section 20 of the Act were violated and an attempt was

made to appoint Chairman of the Standing Committee by the Corporation under

Section 21(5) of the Act when the Standing Committee consisting of 16 members

was not yet constituted.   Relying on the judgment of this Court in Prithipal Singh

and Ors.   vs.   State of  Punjab and anr.4 to the effect  that while dealing with

unprecedented cases the court has to innovate and at times pass unconventional

orders, the High Court passed certain directions in paragraph 43 of its judgment.

Out of 11 directions so passed,  we are concerned with first  7 directions which

pertain to the present matters.  Rest of the directions are in the nature of guidelines

with a view to ensure compliance of various provisions of the Act.  Said first 7

directions as spelt out in paragraph no.43 are extracted hereunder:

“43. In the light of the above, the present Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of as follows:

(i) The election of respondent No.7 as Chairman of the Standing  Committee  of  the  respondent  Municipal Corporation in the special meeting held on 15.6.2018, is  quashed  and  set  aside  as  being  contrary  to  the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

(ii) It is held that, the appointment of fresh 8 members on the  Standing  Committee  in  the  meeting  dated 14.6.2018  is  illegal  and  hence,  the  same  is  also quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Standing Committee  consisting  of  16 members constituted  in  the  meeting  dated  22.05.2017 immediately after general elections of the Corporation

4 (2012)1 SCC 10

15 held  on  19.04.2017  and  its  Chairman  elected  on 19.06.2017  shall  take  steps  for  selecting  8  of  its members  for  retirement  from  the  Standing Committee.   This  step  shall  be  taken  by  the  said Standing  Committee  and  its  Chairman  on  14th September, 2018.

(iv) The  said  Standing  Committee  shall  then  hold  a meeting  on  18.09.2018  for  appointing  fresh  8 members  on  the  Standing  Committee.   This  would enable any member who has been selected for being retired from the Standing Committee to be eligible for reappointment.

(v) The  8  members  selected  for  retirement  shall  stand retired on 19.09.2018 and the fresh 8 members shall become members of  the newly constituted Standing Committee on the same day.

(vi) Thereafter,  such  reconstituted  Standing  Committee shall  in its first  meeting to be held in the month of September  2018,  elect  its  Chairman.   Accordingly, there would be a smooth transition from the erstwhile Standing  Committee  to  such  newly  constituted Standing Committee.  If for some reason the Standing Committee is unable to appoint its Chairman within 30 days of 19.09.2018, the Corporation shall appoint the Chairman in a special meeting under Section 21(5) of the said Act, to be held within 15 days from expiry of the said period of 30 days.

(vii) The  reconstituted  Standing  Committee  and  its Chairman  appointed  in  terms  of  directions  given hereinabove  shall  remain  in  existence  for  the remaining part of the one year tenure of the Standing Committee.

… … …”

16 12. Thus,  the  High  Court  has  ruled  that  the  Standing  Committee  as  was  in

existence before 02.05.2018 shall  be the one which must take all  the steps and

decisions.  It must first, through its Chairman take appropriate steps for selecting

names of 8 members for retirement.  Thereafter, the Standing Committee would

hold a meeting for appointing 8 new members on the Standing Committee.  Such

reconstituted Standing Committee shall, thereafter, in a meeting elect its Chairman.

The Standing Committee so reconstituted with its Chairman shall then continue to

be in existence for the remaining part of the tenure of one year.  

13. The decision of the High Court is under challenge in present matters.  The

first matter was filed by two councillors who are also members of the Standing

Committee, the first petitioner being a councillor who was appointed as a member

of  the Standing Committee  for  the first  time in the meeting dated  14.06.2018.

Since both these petitioners were not parties in the Writ Petition, they approached

this Court with an application seeking permission to challenge the judgment under

appeal.  The second petition was filed by original respondent No.7.  Both these

petitions  came up before  this  Court  on  17.09.2018,  on  which date  the  learned

counsel for the writ petitioners also appeared on caveat. Considering the nature of

urgency,  where certain directions passed by the High Court  were to come into

17 effect on 18th and 19th September, 2018, the matter was immediately taken up for

hearing.  After conclusion of hearing, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Permission to file SLP is granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Issue  notice.   As  Mr.  Chinmoy  Khaladkar,  Adv.  on  the instructions of Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Adv. appearing on caveat  has shown his readiness  to go ahead with the final submissions  at  this  stage  itself,  notice  made  returnable forthwith.   We  issued  notice  to  Mr.  Nishant  R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. appearing for the State of Maharashtra as well, who has appeared for the State.

Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  finally  and considered  their  submissions,  we  direct  (a)  pending consideration,  the judgment  and order  passed  by the  High Court  shall  remain  stayed  (b)  the  parties  shall  file  their written  submissions  within  three  days  from  today  (c)  the matter  will  be  posted  for  pronouncement  of  order  next week.”

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire

matter and the submissions on record.

15. The  decision  of  the  High  Court  is  premised  on  non-compliance  of  the

mandatory provisions of the Act and non-adherence to the timelines as prescribed

under  the  Act.  According  to  the  provisions  of  Sections  20  and  21  of  the  Act

following stages should have been undertaken in the present case:

18 a) Names of one-half of the members of the Standing Committee

who would be retiring on the first day of May of 2018 ought to

have been identified.  Exercise to identify such persons ought to

have been undertaken well in advance.  

b) Any councillor who as a result of such exercise ceased to be a

member  of  the  Standing  Committee  would  be  eligible  for

reappointment in terms of Sub-Section (6) of Section 20 and as

such adequate chance or opportunity seeking an ‘appointment’

should have been afforded.

c) The  Corporation  would  then  appoint  fresh  members  of  the

Standing Committee to fill the offices of those who “are due to

retire” in terms Sub-Section (5) of Section 20 of the Act.  Such

meeting of the Corporation should have been held in the month

“preceding the date of retirement” as specified in Sub-Section

(3) of Section 20 of the Act, i.e. to say in April 2018.

d) While  making  such  appointments  the  Corporation  would  be

guided by principles laid down in Section 31A of the Act namely

those relating to proportional representation.

19 16. It  is  clear  from  the  record  that  the  mandates  as  prescribed  by  various

provisions of the Act were not adhered to and were violated.  But the reasons that

are forthcoming in the affidavits in reply filed by the respondents are to the effect

that there was “code of conduct” issued by the Election Commission of India as a

result of which no appropriate steps could be taken.  Theoretically it was possible

to initiate the steps in the first half of April, 2018 itself but failure on that count, by

itself  does  not  make the  actions  suspect.   The  “code of  conduct”  having been

brought in force from 20.04.2018, no steps were taken either to identify 8 outgoing

members or to have election in terms of or to have the meeting of the Corporation

in terms of  Sub-Section (5)  of  Section 20 before  30.04.2018.   What  happened

thereafter was certainly not in strict compliance of the timelines prescribed.  In the

circumstances, there would be two courses that are open to be considered.  (A)

Upset all actions and relegate the issues to be dealt with afresh at the appropriate

levels in accordance with law.  (B)  Consider whether the actions taken by the

concerned authorities  are  only irregular  or  blatantly illegal.   If  there is  a  mere

irregularity which has not caused prejudice to anyone, a call can certainly be taken

to condone such irregularity rather than nullifying all actions.  

17. The High Court has adopted the first course and issued the aforementioned

directions.  Its direction No.(iv) is not quite correct.  It is the Corporation and not

20 the Standing Committee which is to hold meeting as per Section 20(5) of the Act

for appointing fresh eight members.  Be that as it may, the question is whether the

first course or the second course is the most appropriate one in the present matter.   

18. In the present case there was no challenge to the meeting dated 02.05.2018

which identified names of eight members who would retire, which included the

Chairman of the Standing Committee himself.  Under the orders of the High Court,

despite these developments, the same Standing Committee is to be deemed to be in

existence which must initiate all the actions de novo.  In a given situation such

extraordinary directions may be justified. The question, however, is whether such

directions  were  justified  in  the  present  case.   On  02.05.2018,  names  of  eight

outgoing persons were identified but nothing further was done as at that time, the

“code of conduct” was still in operation.  Appropriate steps were taken only after

the  “code of  conduct”  ceased  to  be  in  operation and a  meeting  was called  on

14.06.2018  to  appoint  new  set  of  eight  members  to  be  part  of  the  Standing

Committee.  Going by Sub-Section (5) of Section 20 such a meeting had to be held

by the Corporation and was rightly undertaken. In this meeting the proportional

representation was maintained and those persons whose names were suggested by

the  group  leaders  of  the  respective  political  parties,  were  appointed  as  new

members of the Standing Committee.

21 It  is  true that  the Chairman had to  be selected  by the newly constituted

Standing Committee.  It appears that in order to expedite the matters, the meeting

was scheduled to be held on the next date that is on 15.06.2018.  This meeting was

called pursuant to agenda circulated on 12.06.2018.  It is again true that as on that

date the reconstituted Standing Committee was not in existence.  However, since

the Standing Committee would be of the Councillors of the Corporation itself, and

since  the  identity  of  eight  new members  who would  now become  part  of  the

Standing Committee was not yet known on 12.06.2018, notices were issued to all

the Councillors of the Corporation.  The record then shows that item 10 on the

agenda for the special meeting dated 15.06.2018 was for election of the Chairman.

It is further clear that the meeting started at 11.00 a.m. whereafter nominations for

the post of Chairman were accepted and various stages were thereafter conducted

and  the  election  of  the  Chairman  was  done  by  16  members  of  the  Standing

Committee.  It is not as if that the election was undertaken by an entity other than

members of the Standing Committee.  The observations of the High Court in that

behalf are not correct.

19. The circumstances thus show that the irregularity that had crept in as a result

of non adherence to the various steps which were required to be taken in the month

of April, 2018 led to a situation where certain urgent actions were required to be

22 taken.  Though said actions were in a way irregular but in substance and in real

sense  they  followed  the  mandate  and  the  appropriate  steps  were  taken  by  the

bodies  in  question  and  not  by  any  entity  or  agency  which,  in  law,  was  not

authorised.  In this scenario, in our considered view, no emergent directions were

required  or  called  for.   The  appointment  of  new  members  of  the  Standing

Committee  went  on  proportional  representation  theory  and  was  purely  by

nomination coming from the group leaders.   Even if very same exercise is to be

undertaken now in terms of the orders passed by the High Court it would not be

qualitatively different. It is not as if any person or a group lost out or was deprived

of any right under the statute.    

20. We thus find that there was no reason for the High Court to interfere in its

writ jurisdiction and issue directions as referred to above.  We, therefore, allow

these appeals,  set  aside the judgment and order under appeal  and dismiss Writ

Petition No.6987 of 2018.  No costs.

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

…………………..……J. (Ashok Bhushan)

New Delhi, September 25, 2018.