Summary
The Pune Municipal Corporation's term expired on 14.03.2022. Because general elections could not be held, the State appointed the Municipal Commissioner as Administrator under Section 452A(1A)/(1B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The appellant, elected Chairman of the Standing Committee shortly before expiry, claimed the Committee continued until a new one was elected, relying on the proviso to Section 20(3). The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of his writ petition. Under Article 243U and Section 6, a Corporation lasts five years 'and no longer'; councillors' terms end with it (Section 6A); and the Standing Committee consists only of councillors. It therefore stands dissolved with the Corporation. The proviso to Section 20(3) does not keep it alive, and Section 48 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 has no counterpart in the 1949 Act.
Issues
- Whether the Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 continues to function after the Corporation's term expires and an Administrator is appointed under Section 452A.
Provisions considered
- Article 243U(1), Constitution of IndiaA Municipality continues for five years from its first meeting and no longer; no interpretation can extend the life of a committee of councillors beyond that. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15)
- Sections 6 and 6A, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949The Corporation's duration is five years and councillors' terms are co-terminus with it, so no one holds office as councillor after expiry. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15)
- Section 20 and proviso to Section 20(3), Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949The Standing Committee consists of sixteen councillors; the proviso applies only to members in office when general elections are held, retiring on election of a new committee, and does not preserve the committee after the Corporation's term ends. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14)
- Sections 452 and 452A(1A), (1B), Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949Section 452 concerns dissolution for default; appointment of an Administrator under Section 452A when elections cannot be held does not override Article 243U or Sections 6 and 6A. (¶¶ 11, 15)
- Section 48, Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888Its express provision continuing the Standing Committee has no counterpart in the 1949 Act and does not assist the appellant. (¶¶ 11, 16)
Held
- Since the Corporation lasts five years and no longer, councillors' terms are co-terminus with it and the Standing Committee consists only of councillors, the Standing Committee stands dissolved when the Corporation's term ends. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The proviso to Section 20(3) operates only where members are in office when general elections are held, and cannot keep a Standing Committee in existence after the Corporation's term has expired. (¶ 14)
- The absence in Section 452A of a provision like Section 452(2)(c), and the specific provisions for the Transport and Wards Committees, do not imply that the Standing Committee survives; any other reading would conflict with Article 243U and Sections 6 and 6A. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Bombay High Court's dismissal of the writ petition upheld.