GANESH DUTT BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1965-7-17
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 19,1965

GANESH DUTT BAJPAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

R.S.Pathak, J. - (1.)THE petitioner prays for the quashing of an order of the State Government suspending the execution of a resolution of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, and an order of the Deputy Mukhya Nagar Adhikari made pursuant to it.
(2.)WITH a view to implementing certain development schemes, the Nagar Mahapalika on July 18 1962 decided to allot a number of plots to Transport Agencies and Luggage Carriers, and invited applications for allotment of these plots. The Executive Committee of the Mahapalika constituted a Sub-committee to process the applications and finalise the allotments. Apart from this, an allotment of flats, houses and shops was also made by the Executive Committee.
On July 21, 1964 the Mahapalika taking cognizance of complaints in respect of the allotments made by the Executive Committee and its Sub-committee constituted two Special Committees to examine those alloments and to submit its report to the Mahapalika. It also directed that the registration of transfer deeds and delivery of possession in respect of such plots, house, flats and shops should be stayed until the submission of the report by the Specail Committee. On July 29 1964 the Deputy Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, in giving effect to the resolution of the Mahapalika directed that lease deeds should not be registered and possession should not be given.

The State Government then by its order dated September 19, 1964 suspended the resolution dated July 21, 1964 and the order dated July 29, 1964 These two measures have been assailed by the petitioner, who is a Sabhasad of the Mahapalika.

(3.)A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of this petition. It is urged that the petitioner has no such interest in the quashing of the Government order as can entitle him to maintain the petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the preliminary objection must be sustained.
The resolution was passed by the Mahapalika. If anybody was aggrieved at all by the suspension of that resolution and could petition this Court for its being quashed, it was the Mahapalika. It is true, as learned counsel points out, that the petitioners contributed to the passing of the resolution by participating in the proceedings which led to it. That, However, in my opinion does not invest the petitioner with the right to institute the proceedings no right belonging to the petitioner has been affected by the impugned order of the State Government. The right which the petitioner enjoyed was the right which belongs to every Sabhasad, namely the right to participate in the meeting of the Mahapalika and to vote therein. When the proceedings culminated in a resolution, it was a resolution passed by the Mahapalika and represented the indivisible, disembodied voice of the Mahapalika. The, Mahapalika is a corporate body, and a resolution passed by it at its meeting cannot be said to be the distinct and separate act of each of the individual members constituting it.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.