NANDKISHORE GANESH JOSHI versus COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KALYAN AND DOMBIVALI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 15-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NANDKISHORE GANESH JOSHI 
v. 
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KAL YAN AND 
DOMBIV ALI AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 15, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Article 226-Standing Committee appointed under Mumbai Municipal 
Corporation Act-Committee while considering approval of a contract asking 
Commissioner to supply required documents-Commissioner, approving the 
contract invoking proviso to s.73 (c) of the Act-Writ petition by Chairman 
of Standing Committee challenging order of Commissioner-Locus standi of 
D Chairman to file writ petition-Held, Chairman has locus standi to maintain 
the writ petition-Question involving interpretation of statutory provision 
can be gone into by High Court even in a public interest litigation-s.451 
cannot be said to provide an alternative remedy-Mumbai Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1949-ss. 20, 73 (c) and 451-Locus standi. 
E 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: 
s.73(c)-Contract-Approval of by Standing Committee-Committee's 
power to ask for documents-Held, Standing Committee is entitled to ask for 
relevant documents-Direction issued to place before the Standing Committee 
all materials required by it-Rule Book of Mumbai Municipal Corporation-
F Rule 24. 
s. 73(c), proviso-Proposal for approval of contract submitted to 
Standing Committee-Commissioner approving the contract invoking the 
proviso-Held, approval of contract by Standing Committee is not an empty 
formality-Proviso would apply in a situation where despite meeting Standing 
G Committee deliberately or otherwise refuses. or fails to take any decision-
/nterpretation of statutes. 
Legal Maxim-ut res magis valeat quam pereat-Applicability of 
H 
584 
N.G. JOSHI v. COMMR., MUNI. CORPN. OF KAL YAN AND DOMBIVALI 
585 
Respondent No. 1 invited tenders for supply of various materials and, A 
on receipt thereof, forwarded summary of three such tenders for approval of 
the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation. The Standing 
Committee felt that the proposal did not contain material to arrive at a decision 
on merits, and resolved that the administration of the Corporation should 
submit all the files and documents as required under the rules, and further 
observed that in future briefs of each proposal should be submitted alongwith B 
profile for its perusal. Respondent No. 1 raised a doubt as to under which 
provision the Standing Committee could give the direction. The State 
Government clarified that necessary documents should be made available to 
the Standing Committee. But before Government's communication could 
reach respondent No.1, he invoked his power under the proviso to clause (c) C 
ofs. 73 of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Appellant, 
the Chairman of the Standing Committee, challenged the order ofrespondent 
No. 1 in a writ petition before the High Court which dismissed the same on 
an interpretation of clause (c) ofs.73 of the Act as also on locus of the writ 
petitioner. 
i 
. 
In the present appeal filed by the writ petitioner, it was contended that 
the documents sought for by the Standing Committee were essential for 
assessing merits of the tenders and, in the circumstances, proviso to clause 
(c) ofs.73 of the Act, could not have been invoked. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A statutory Committee should not be denied access to the 
documents to which it is entitled. In the instant case, the Standing Committee 
D 
' 
E 
is required to perform its functions in terms of the provisions of the Mumbai 
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It has a duty to act in public 
interest as also fairly and in a reasonable manner. Approval of a contract and p 
that too with previous approval by the Standing Committee cannot be said to 
be an empty formality. If the Standing Committee is unable to approve any 
proposal on the basis of the material supplied to it, it is entitled to ask for the 
relevant documents and the Commissioner is bound to comply with the said 
request unless there exist strong and cogent reasons for not doing so. Clause 
(c) of Section 73 is couched in the negative language and, therefore, is G 
imperative in character. The State Government had also opined that the 
documents required by the Standing Committee should be made available to 
it Rule 24 of the Rule Book of the Corporation also indicates that each member 
of the Committee was entitled to have access to the documents. 
(593-G; 592-E-F; 592-D

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