JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This is an application for stay in connection with a pending appeal of the operation of the order dated 20th May, 1999 passed by the learned Trial Judge in A. S. T. No. 1875 of 1999. From Annexure 'C' appended to the connected petition it appears that order No 280/MA/O/C 4/1M-4/99 dated 17th May, 1999 Issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Municipal Affairs, Writers' Building, Calcutta for appointment of an Administrator in South Dum Dum Municipality was under challenge and the leaned Judge was please d to stay the operation of the said order. The order which is under challenge before the writ Court in enclosed to the petition for stay which in appended at Annexure 'A'. From the perusal of the said Annexure 'A' it appears that certain Municipalities have been mentioned in the table appended therein and it has been further mentioned that after expiry of the period the Municipalities will stand dissolved with effect from the date mentioned therein and the Government will appoint the officers named in Col. 5 thereof as Administrators of the concerned Municipalities.
(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners before us have assailed the ex parte ad-interim older of stay of the operation of the order impugned vide Annexure-A, firstly on the ground and according to him that the order of stay granted by the learned Judge is having a laconic lack. According to Mr. Chatterjee even an ex parte order is required to be backed up by reasons in that the consideration weighing with the learned Judge can he deciphered from the perusal of the order. Apart from making such preliminary submission Mr Chatterjee has also submitted with regard to the analysis and analogous provision as contemplated under Older 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and according to him that even before granting ad-interim order of stay the requisite formalities are neither adhered to nor the presence of criteria in favour of grant of id-interim ex parte order was recorded therein. Mr. Chatterjee has perhaps relied on the well-known decision of Chaddha's case reported is 1993 (3) Supreme Court Cases page 161 and Stanley Morgan's case reported in 1994 (4) SCC page 226 This Court before considering the said submission has been confronted with a major plank of the submissions canvassed by Mr. Chatterjee as according to Mr. Chatterjee the provisions enumerated under Article 243-U of the Constitution operates as a bar for passing the impugned order which is under challenge before us. A reference was made to the said provisions which has been quoted herein:-
"Article 243 U(1)-Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, provided the Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dissolution."
(3.) According to Mr. Chatterjee, the portion which is circumscribed under a coverage being preceded by, and followed by, namely the expression "unless sooner or dissolved under any law for the time being in force and according to him the proviso superadded to Article 243-U(1) will come into play only when the case relates to earlier dissolution of the Municipality and not otherwise. According to Mr. Chatterjee Article 243-U(1) will indicate without any ambiguity that the longivity of Municipality or its life time is limited upto expiry of 3 (Five) years from the date of the first meeting of such Municipality. According to Mr. Chatterjee is view of the constitutional embargo so fresh lease of life can be given to such Municipality beyond the said period of time. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that though not admitting but even assuming that there is any element of contradiction between the constitutional provision had the provisions as enumerated in State law, there is no lota of doubt that provisions contained under the constitutional law will prevail over the State law and such provisions under the State law cannot but be relegated to the background.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.