RUSTAMJI NASARVANJI DANGER versus JORAM KUNVERJI GANATRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 20-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
884 
RUSTAMJI NASARVANJI DANGER 
v. 
JORAM KUNVERJI GANATRA AND ORS. 
October 20, 1976 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Gujara~ Municipalities Act, 1963- S. 38(l)(b) (i) "acts as a councillor"-
Scope of -President of the Municipality applying for lease of land-If debarred 
from taking land on lease-General power of supervision conferred on the 
President-If President should be deemed to have acted within the meaning of 
S. 38(l)(b)(i) when lease was granted to him by the Chief Officer. 
• 
Under s. 38(l)(b)(i) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, if a coun-
cillor during the term for which he ha$ been elected or nominatec~ <1c1s as a 
councillor in any matter in which he has directly or indirectly any share or 
interest, he shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. 2, be disabled from con-
tinuing to be a councillor and his office shall become vacant. 
While functioning as President of a municipality the appellant obtained a 
plot of land within the municipality for running a mill. The Chief Officer who 
was the authority to grant such permission permitted the appellant to hold the 
plot on certain conditions. The High Court in writ petition by the respondent 
held that the appellant wiis disqualified from continuing President of the munici-
pality. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) Section 38(1) (b) (i) disables a councillor from con.tinuing as 
such if he "acts as a councillor" in the matter of allotment of any land to him-
self; there is no bar in the Act to a councillor getting a lease of the land from 
the municipality as would appear from s. 11 (3 )(A) (i). It is only in a case where 
he acts as a councillor in getting the lease that he is disqualified. The;e is no· 
thing on the record to show that. the appellant had acted as a councillor to have 
the plot allotted to himself. [887 HJ 
(2) Whether or not the Chief Offic~r was influenced by the fact that the 
applicant before him was President of the municipaity, was not relevant to the 
question whether s. 38(l)(b)(i) was attracted. [888 A] 
( 3) The general power of supervisio!l conferred on the President does not 
imply that in every case wher~ he applied for a lease, which he is entitled to do 
as s. 11(3)(A)(i) indicates, he shcmld be deemed to have 'acted' within the 
meaning of s. 38(l)(b) (i); otherwise the President of a municipality under the 
Act, by virtue of his office would be disentitled altogether from applying for 
permission to use any land. of the municipality. If this were the correct position 
then there was no point in limiting the disqualification contemplated in s. 38 
(1) (b) (i) to cases where the councillor acts as a councillor. The words 'acts 
as a councillor' cannot be treated as redundant. The councillor acts as a coun-
cillor within the meaning of s. 38(l)(b)(i) when he performs any of the func-
tions, which, under the Act, he is required to perform. An allegation of mis-
use of his position against a councillor would not attract the disability under 
s. 38(l)(b)(i) unless it was shown further that he has acted as a cnuncillor 
in the matter. [888 B-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 974 of 1975. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
25-6-1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Sp!. Civil Appln. No. 1223/ 
74). 
D. V. Patel and S. S. Khanduja, for the Appellant. 
(~
·;.., 
) 
R. N. DANGER v. J. K. GANATRA (Gupta; J.) 
885 
·lf 
U.R. La/it, P. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jatley, for Respondent 
A 
No. 1. 
. 
·« 
-\ 
M. N. Shroff, for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA, J. 
The appellant was elected a councillor of Aniar 
municipality in Kutch District sometime in 1972, and later, President 
of the municipality. 
On June 30, 1973, after he had been elected 
President, the appellant applied to the chief officer of the municipality 
for allotting to him a plot of land admeasuring 18 feet x 16 feet 
situate in the town of Anjar. 
In his application the appellant stated 
that he wanted the plot for running a flour mill temporarily until he 
got a suitable plot from the Government. 
By his order dated July 5, 
1973 t~ chief officer granted the request permitting the appellant to 
hold the land on payment of rent on condition, inter alia, that the land 
should be vacated whenever the municipality so ordered. The first 
respondent who is a 'resident of Anjar applied to the Collector of 
Kutch under section 38 of the Gujarat Mu

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