MUNICIPAL BOARD, KANNAUJ versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 12-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUNICIPAL BOARD, KANNAUJ 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, & ORS. 
August 12, 1971. 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916-Section 34(1-B), scope of: 
The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Kannauj (U.P.) 
dismissed 74 striking employees. 
Some of the employees appealed 
against the order of dismissal and most of them were reinstated. The 
others did not appeal and the dismissal order stood in their ca$eS. 
After a year, the State Govt. purporting to act under s. 34 (1-B) of, 
the U.P. Municipalities Act, passed an order prohibiting the executfon 
or further execution of the order of dismissal passed by the Executive 
Officer on the ground that r. 5 of the U. P. Municipal Board Servants 
(Enquiry punishment and termination of service) Rules were not followed 
and the dismissed employees were not heard and so the alleged order 
was illegal and improper. Section 34(!-B) of the U.P. Municipalities 
Act, inter a/ia, provides that the State Govt. may by order 'prohibit 
the execution or further execution of a resolution or order', passed by 
a Board, 'if in its opinion such resolution or order is prejudicial to the 
public interest' or has been passed 'in abuse of powers or in fragrant 
breach of provision of any law in force', and 'may prohibit continu-
ance by any person or any act in pursuance of such resolution or order.' 
The Municipal Board challenged the order of the State 
Govern-
ment in a writ petition; but the High Court dismissed the petition. 
In appeal to this Court the Board contended that the provisions 
of s. 34 (1-B) were incapable of application to an order of dismissal. 
A.llowing the appeal, 
' 
HELD: The State Government has no power to cancel or set 
aside an order which exhausts itself after it has been passed or made. 
Where the resolution or order does not require any acts to be performed 
or steps to be taken for the execution or further execution of the reso-
1 ution or order of the Board or its officer there remained nothing of 
which execution could be prohibited. The sub-section only empowers 
the State Government to prevent something being done in futuro. 
[200A-E] 
· Shujaat Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors, 1966 A.L.,J. 499, refer-
red to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 42 
of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated July 21, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court,in Special 
Appeal No. 457 of 1967. 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972J l S.C.R. 
J. P. Goyal and G. N. Wantoo, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
H. K. P.,ri and S. K. Dhingra, for respondents Nos. 
3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 25, 31 to 35, 38, 39, 42 to 50, 53 to 56, 58, 
A 
59, 60 to 62, 65 to 67, 69 to 71, 73 and 76. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Palekar, J. This appeal by special leave against the 
decision of the appellate Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court involves the question of the legality and validity of c 
an order dated 12th May, 1965 passed by the State Gov-
ernment purporting to act under section 34(1-B) of the 
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referc 
red to as "the Act"). The im::ugned order is as follows :-
"U.P. Govermrent 
D 
Department of Municipal Board, 
Serial No. 1725 GI lfP 1964/64 
12-5-65 
NOTIFICATION 
The then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, 
E 
Kannauj dismissed 74 sweepers of Municipal Board 
Kannauj from 9th April, 1964 under section 76 of 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. 
The dismissal of the above sweepers was illegal 
and improper because the procedure prescribed in 
F 
Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Karamchari 
(Janch, Dand tatha Seva Samapti) Niyamawali 
[U.P. Municipal Boards Servants (Enquiry, Punish-
ment and Terminaticn of Service Rules)] was not 
followed and they were not given any opportunity 
of being heard and the opinion of the State Govern-
G 
ment is that the above order of 9th April, 1964 by the 
present Executive Officer Municipal Board Kannauj 
is adverse to public interest and the order has been 
made by seriously defying the rules of Uttar Pra-
desh Municipal Karamchari Janch Dand tatha 
Seva Samapti Niyamawali [U.P. Municipal Boards 
Servants (Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of 
Service Rules)]. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUNICIPAL BOARD v. U.P. STATE (Palekar, J.) 
195 
So, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise 
of his power under section 34 sub-section 1-B of the 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.