Supreme Court clarifies the tenure of a Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation: Hemant Narayan Rasne vs. The Commissioner and Administrator of Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2022) INSC 1029 (19 October 2022)

Case Background

The Pune Municipal Corporation’s term was set to end on 14 March 2022. Anticipating this, the Government of Maharashtra issued an order on 3 March 2022, appointing the Commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation as its Administrator, because it was not possible to conduct general elections for the new Corporation. The appellant, Hemant Narayan Rasne, was elected as the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on 4 March 2022. He then made a representation on 10 March 2022, arguing that the Standing Committee should continue to function, irrespective of the appointment of the Administrator. This was rejected by the Government on 14 March 2022. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 29 March 2022.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The High Court held that there is no provision in the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 that allows the Standing Committee to continue functioning after the term of the Corporation ends. The High Court emphasized that the term of the Corporation is five years, as per Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The High Court also noted that Section 6A of the Act stipulates that the term of the Councillors is co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation. The High Court concluded that once the term of the Corporation ends, the Councillors cease to be Councillors, and therefore, the Standing Committee, which comprises Councillors, cannot continue to exist. The High Court also pointed out that Section 452A of the Act mandates that the Administrator exercises all the powers and functions of the Corporation.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:

• ✓ Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India: This provision states that every Municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, unless sooner dissolved.
  
  “Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer”
• ✓ Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section mirrors Article 243U(1) of the Constitution, stating that every Corporation shall continue for a period of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.
  
  “(1) Every Corporation, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for a period of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.”
• ✓ Section 6A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This provision stipulates that the term of office of the Councillors shall be co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation.
  
  “The term of office of the Councillors shall be co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation.”
• ✓ Section 20 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section deals with the constitution of the Standing Committee, stating that it shall consist of sixteen Councillors. The proviso to sub-section (3) states that all members of the Standing Committee retire on the election of a new 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).”
• ✓ Section 25 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section concerns the appointment of the Transport Committee. The proviso to sub-section (5) states that if a Councillor ceases to be a Councillor, they also cease to be a member of the Transport Committee.
  
  “(5) One-half of the members of the Transport Committee appointed by the Corporation shall retire in every second year on the first day of the month in which the meeting referred to in sub-section (2) was held:
  Provided that, in the case of a councillor appointed a member of the Transport Committee, if at any time before the date of his retirement he ceases to be a councillor, he shall cease to be such member, and his office shall thereupon become vacant.”
• ✓ Section 29A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section deals with the constitution of Wards Committees, stating that their duration shall be co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation.
  
  “(3) The duration of the Wards Committees shall be co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation.”
• ✓ Section 452 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section deals with the power of the State Government to dissolve a Corporation. It states that upon dissolution, all powers and duties of the Corporation, the Standing Committee, and other committees shall be exercised by a Government Officer appointed by the State Government.
  
  “(2) With effect from the date specified in the order passed under sub-section (1) or with effect from the date on which the Corporation stands dissolved under the proviso to article 243-ZF, the following consequences shall ensue:-
  (c) all powers and duties of the Corporation, the Standing Committee, the Transport Committee and all other committees constituted under the Act, shall, during the period of dissolution be exercised and performed by such Government Officer or Officers as the State Government may, from time to time, appoint in this behalf”
• ✓ Section 452A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: This section provides for the appointment of a Government officer to exercise the powers and functions of the Corporation when general elections cannot be held due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  
  “(1) For every Municipal Corporation deemed to have been constituted or constituted for a larger urban area under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, of section 3, the State Government may appoint a Government officer or officers to exercise all the powers and to perform all the functions and duties of a Corporation under this Act:
  (1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Election Commission has brought to the notice of the State Government that it is not possible for it to conduct the general elections to the Corporation within the period specified in the order issued under sub-section (1A), due to COVID-19 pandemic situation in the State, then the State Government may, by order, appoint a Government officer or officers, or extend the period of any officer appointed under sub-section (1), for such period as may be requested by the State Election Commission, for exercising all the powers and performing all the functions and duties of the Corporation under this Act.”
• ✓ Section 48 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: This section provides for the continuity of the Standing Committee, irrespective of the retirement of the Councillors, until the appointment of a new Standing Committee.
  
  “The Standing Committee in existence on the day for the retirement of councillors shall continue to hold office until such time as a new Standing Committee is appointed under section 43, notwith-standing that the members of the said Committee or some of them may no longer be Councillors.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the Standing Committee is a continuing body and its term is not co-terminus with the term of the Corporation. The arguments were as follows:

• ✓ The appellant contended that Section 20 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which governs the Standing Committee, does not explicitly state that its term is co-terminus with the Corporation’s term, unlike the provisions for the Transport Committee (Section 25) and the Wards Committee (Section 29A).
• ✓ The appellant highlighted the proviso to Section 20(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which states that members of the Standing Committee retire only upon the election of a new committee. This, he argued, indicates that the Standing Committee continues to exist until a new committee is elected, regardless of the Corporation’s term.
• ✓ The appellant argued that the Standing Committee plays a pivotal role in the functioning of the Corporation, as evidenced by Sections 68(2), 69(2), 96, 101, 102, and 272 of the Act. Therefore, its continued functioning is essential even when an Administrator is appointed.
• ✓ The appellant referred to Section 48 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which explicitly provides for the continuity of the Standing Committee until a new committee is appointed, even if the members are no longer Councillors. This, he argued, demonstrates that the concept of a continuing Standing Committee is not unknown in municipal law.
• ✓ The appellant argued that while Section 452 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which deals with the dissolution of the Corporation, provides for the exercise of powers by a Government Officer, Section 452A, which applies in this case, does not have a similar provision. This, he argued, implies that the Standing Committee should continue to operate under Section 452A.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Standing Committee’s term is indeed co-terminus with the Corporation’s term. Their arguments were as follows:

• ✓ The respondents argued that the Standing Committee consists only of Councillors, as per Section 20(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Since Section 6A of the Act states that the term of the Councillors is co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation, the Standing Committee’s term also ends with the Corporation’s term.
• ✓ The respondents pointed out that Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, mandate that the term of a Municipality/Corporation is five years and no longer. Therefore, any proposition of the Standing Committee continuing after the Corporation’s term is incompatible with these provisions.
• ✓ The respondents argued that specific provisions for limiting the term of the Transport Committee and Wards Committee were necessary because these committees include members who are not Councillors. Since the Standing Committee consists only of Councillors, no such specific provision was required.

Table of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation continues to exist and function even after the expiry of the term of the Corporation and the term of office of its members (Councillors).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Standing Committee’s term is co-terminus with the Corporation’s term.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the proviso to Section 20(3) implies that the Standing Committee continues until a new committee is elected, stating that the proviso only applies when general elections are held and there are existing members of the Standing Committee. The Court also distinguished the case from the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, noting that the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, does not have a similar provision for the continuity of the Standing Committee.

The Court emphasized that the appointment of an Administrator under Section 452A of the Act, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, does not override the constitutional and statutory provisions that limit the term of the Corporation and its Councillors.

The Court’s decision is based on the following reasoning:

• ✓ The term of the Corporation is explicitly limited to five years by Article 243U(1) of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Act.
• ✓ The term of the Councillors is co-terminus with the term of the Corporation, as per Section 6A of the Act.
• ✓ The Standing Committee is composed of Councillors, and therefore, its term cannot extend beyond the term of the Councillors and the Corporation.
• ✓ The proviso to Section 20(3) does not imply that the Standing Committee can continue after the term of the Corporation ends.
• ✓ The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, does not have a provision similar to Section 48 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which allows for the continuity of the Standing Committee.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “When it is apparent that the duration of the Corporation itself is for a period of five years and no longer, as per the mandate of Article 243U(1) of the Constitution of India, duly reflected in Section 6 of the Act of 1949; and the term of the office of Councillors has specifically been provided to be co-terminus with the duration of Corporation in Section 6A of the Act of 1949; and then, the Standing Committee is to be consisting of “sixteen Councillors”, we are unable to find any logic in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the term of the Corporation comes to an end and even when the term of office of the Councillors comes to an end yet, the Standing Committee as existing on the date of completion of the terms of Corporation and Councillors shall continue to be in office until composition of the new Committee after elections.”
• “The proviso to sub-section(3) of Section 20 of the Act of 1949, as referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not carry the matter any further for the appellant. The said proviso only refers to the situation where the members of the Standing Committee are to retire from office “on the election of a new Committee under sub-section (2)”. It is obvious that the proviso operates only when there are existing members of the Standing Committee when general elections are held; and the said proviso does not, in any manner, suggest that the Standing Committee can continue to exist even after the expiration of the term of the Corporation.”
• “The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, while relying on Section 48 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, are also not of any help to the appellant. The said provision of the Act of 1888 specifically provides for the continuity of the Standing Committee until a new Standing Committee is appointed. The Act of 1949 does not have any similar provision for continuity of the Standing Committee. The submissions made on the basis of Section 452A of the Act of 1949 are also of no help to the appellant. Section 452A deals with a specific contingency where general elections could not be held due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appointment of an Administrator under Section 452A does not, in any manner, override the mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Sections 6 and 6A of the Act of 1949.”

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that the term of the Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation is co-terminus with the term of the Corporation and its Councillors. This is because:

• ✓ The Constitution of India (Article 243U(1)) and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Section 6), explicitly limit the term of a Municipal Corporation to five years.
• ✓ The Act (Section 6A) explicitly states that the term of the Councillors is co-terminus with the duration of the Corporation.
• ✓ The Standing Committee is composed of Councillors, and therefore, its term cannot extend beyond the term of the Councillors and the Corporation.

Obiter Dicta

There were no significant obiter dicta in this judgment. The Court focused solely on the specific issue of the Standing Committee’s tenure and avoided making pronouncements on broader legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hemant Narayan Rasne vs. The Commissioner and Administrator of Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. clarifies that the Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation cannot continue to function after the term of the Corporation and its Councillors has ended. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the constitutional and statutory provisions that limit the term of the Corporation and its elected members. This judgment settles the legal position on the tenure of the Standing Committee under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and has implications for the functioning of municipal bodies across the state.