LexSAU. LAXMI VERMA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [201 O] 4 S.C.R. 782 SAU. LAXMI VERMA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3411-3412 of 2010) APRIL 19, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: s.41(2) - Resignation by C Councillor - Procedure - Held: Resignation is to be delivered in person and signed before the Collector - Mere putting initials at certain places scored out in the resignation letter before the Collector would not amount to putting the signatures before the Collector himself - The provision is D mandatory in nature and must be complied in letter and spirit - Election laws. Respondent 6 was an elected Councillor of Municipal Council. Few days after the elElctions, he tendered his E resignation to the Collector which was duly accepted by the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector proceeded to arrange for fresh elections. Meanwhile, respondent 6 filed revision application before the Additional Commissioner stating that he had in fact not resigned in accordance with law and there was complete violation of sub-section F (2) of Section 41 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and therefore the resignation tendered by him should be held as invalid and inoperative. Meanwhile election programme was announced which specifically mentioned G that the election was subject to the decision of pending revision application. Elections were again held and appellant was elected as Councillor and subsequently she was also elected as President of Municipal Council and continued as such. Additional Commissioner allowed H 782 SAU. LAXMI VERMA v.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 783 AND ORS. the revision application of respondent no.6 thereby A restoring the status of Municipal Councillor to respondent no.6. Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition, which was dismissed. Hence the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. There was no legally valid resignation 1tendered by Respondent No. 6 and the Collector committed an error in accepting the same as there was B not full and complete compliance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Maharashtra Municipal C Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Section 41 (2) of the Act required that a Councillor may resign his office unconditionally at any time by notice in writing in his hand, to be addressed to the Collector. It further required that such resignation was D to be delivered in person and signed before the Collector and then only such resignation would be effective. It cannot be disputed that an obligation was created by the Statute to perform it in the manner as provided therein, and in case of its non-compliance, the effect thereof would E be rendered redundant and invalid in law. Thus, mere putting irtitials at certain places scored out before the Collector, would not amount to putting the signatures in the resignation letter before the Collector himself. [Paras 7, 10] [788-C-D; 789-8-C] F 1.2. It is true that the Collector admitted that the resignation was typewritten and it was already signed by the Respondent No. 6. On questioning whether it was his own, Respondent No. 6 confirmed that it was his own resignation. Thereafter, Collector took a copy of his G resignation back and made corrections in point No. 4 in that resignation and put his initials before him and again handed it over, on which he then put the remark "submitted before me by respondent no. 6". The said statement of the Collector clearly established that in any H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 4 S.C.R. A event the same was not signed by Respondent No. 6 in his presence. Thus, it is manifest that there was non- compliance of the provision of Section 41(2) of the Act. The said provision being mandatory in nature should have been complied in letter and spirit. Its non- B compliance would automatically lead to irresistible conclusion that the same was not properly and validly accepted resignation of Respondent No. 6 by the Collector. [Para 12] [789-G-H; 790-A-C] ~ 1.3. The critical examination of the Photostat copy of v the original resignation of Respondent No. 6 makes it abundantly clear that in it certain words were scored out and only at that place, respondent 6 had put his initials, which was already typed resignation, on which he had already put his signature.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.