K. M. KANAVI versus THE STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 18-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·( 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
K. M. KANAVI 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE 
April 18, 1968 
(S. M, Snau, J. M, Smil.AT AND V. BBARGAVA, JJ.) 
821 
Bombay Municipal Boroughs A.ct, 
(18 of 1925)-Section 23A.(2), 
(3) and s. 200(1)-Prosecution and conviction of miring President for 
disobeying orders of State Government to hand ov~r charge--Procedure 
prescribed by s. 200( 1) mandatory. 
Section 23A(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, makes 
it an offence if a retiring President to whom a direction has been issued 
by the Staie Go~ern'!'ent to hand over charge of his office does not com• 
ply ";!th such direct!on and under s. 200(1) 
the authorities who "may 
direct any . prosecution for punishment of any person offending against 
the provisions of the Act are !he Standing Cominittee and the Chief 
Officer. 
The appellant who was removed from the office of Presidentship re-
1fused to obey the order of the State Government directing him to hand 
over charge to the newly elected President. 
He was prosecuted and Con-
victed for an offence under s . .23A(3 ), not on the direction of the Stand-
ing Committee or the Chief Officer as required by s. 200(1) but on a 
complaint filed at the instance of the State Government by the newly 
elected President. The High Court, dismissing revision application against 
the order of conviction, took the view that s. 200( 1) was only an enabl-
ing provision and it could not be held to be exhaustive of the authorities 
who could make directions for .initiation of such . proceedings. In appeal 
to this Court, 
HELD : The conviction must be set aside. The Scheme of the Act 
and the purpose of s. 200 ( 1) make it clear that if any proceeding for 
punishment of any person for contravention ·of any of the provisions of 
the Act is to be instituted, it must be instituted in the manner laid down 
in s. 200( 1) of the Act and in that manner only. The word "may" was 
intended to give a discretion to the Standing Committee or the Chief 
Officer to make directions for taking proceedings. only when they consi-
dered it appropriate that such a direction should be made ·and to avoid 
compelling the Standing Committee or the Chief Officer to make· such 
directions in all cases. rl the interpretation of the High Court were to be 
accepted it would mean that this provision 
was totally unnecessary. be-
cause, there would. be no need to confer power on the Standing Com· 
mittee or the Chief Officer to make such 
directions if such directions 
could be made or proceedings instituted at the instance of any private 
individual. 1826 C-D. Fl 
Ballt.vdass A.garwala v. Shri 1. C, Chokravarty, [1960) 2 S.C.R. 739 
Mangulal Chunilal v. Manilal Magan/al and Another, Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 59 of 1965 decided on 23-11-1967, followed : 
The State v. Monllal lethalal, (19S3) SS B.L.R. 377, referred to. 
Section 200(1), as it stands at present. is clearly applicable even to a 
proceeding for punishment i:Jf a retiring President under s. 23A( 3) even 
though it might 
look 
anomalous 
that 
the 
prosecution 
in 
such 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
circumstances bas to be ordered by the Chief Officer wbo was his subordi· 
A 
nate at least during the time when he was working as the President. 1be 
remedy lies in suitable amendment of s. 200( I). (828 El 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
145 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 15, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Cr. Revision 
B 
Petition 299 of 1964. 
H. R. Gokhale and R. B. Datar, for the appellant. 
R. Gopalakrishnan, and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargna, J. The appellant, K. M. Kanavi, was the President 
of the Municipal Borough of Gadag Betgeri froll) 11th January, 
1960 to 15th March, 1963. He was removed from the President· 
ship on i5th March, 1963 by an Order passed by the Govern-
ment of Mysore for neglect of duty and incapacity under section 
21 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (No. XVIH 
of 1925) (hereinafter xeferred to as "the Act") which was appli-
cable to Gadag Betgeri, even though it was situated in the State 
of Mysore, because it was earlier a part of the State of Bombay. 
On the next day, i.e., on 16th March, 1963, the Government 
passed an order superseding the Borough. 
The appellant filed 
two writ petitions challenging these two orders of his removal and 
supersession of the Borough. 
The order - of supersessi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.