THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus B. K. TAKKAMORE & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 02-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
v. 
B. K. TAKKAMORE & ORS. 
February 2, 196 7 
B 
[K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAM!, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (C.P. & Berar Act 2 of 1950), 
s. 40_8-i'vfuuicipality--Super.session-Grounds of interference 
irz 
writ 
app/icatio11-0rder if SllStainable when one of tlze two charges found not 
proved. 
By s. 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 the State 
Government may, after giving an opportunity to the Corporation to show 
cause, pass an order superseding the Corporation, if it is of opinion that 
the Corporation ls not competent or persistently makes default in the per-
formance of the duties imposed on it by or under the Act. 
After the 
requisite show cause notice the State Government passed the impugned 
Order superseding the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The High Court, 
in a writ petition, quashed the Order holding that the State Government 
exercised its power under s. 408 on grounds which were not reasonably 
related to its ~gitimate exercise and that the finding upon which the Order 
was passed was rationally impossible on the materials before the State 
Government. On appeal to this Court : 
HELD : The Order of supersession was valid and could not be set 
aside. 
(i) Of the two grounds on which the opinion of the State Government 
was based the first ground could not be sustained, firstly because the Cor-
poration had no opportunity to show cause against the charge, and secondly, 
because no reasonable person on the materials before the State Government 
could possibly form the opinion that the charge was proved. 
Regarding 
the second ground there were materials before the State Government IJl)On 
which It could find that the Corporation was not competent to perform 
the duties imposed upon it. [S88H; S92D) 
In a writ application the court will not review the facta as an appellate 
body. But the Order of supersession is liable to be set aside, as in excess 
of the statutory power under s. 408, if no reasonable person on a proper 
consideration of the materials before the State Government will form the 
opinion that the Corporation is not competent to perform or persistently 
defaults in the performance of the duties imposed on it. The Order is also 
liable to be set aside if it was passed in bad faith or due opportunity to 
show cause was not given. [585H] 
(ii) The Order cannot be set aside for the reason that one of the 
grounds is found to be non-existent or irrelevant. The Order, read with 
the show cause notice shows that in the opinion of the State Government 
the second ground by itself was serious enough to warrant action under 
s. 408. [595 A-Bl 
H 
An administrative or quasi-judicial Order based on several grounds, all 
taken together, cannot be sustained if it be found th.at some of the grounds 
are non-existent or irrelevant and there is nothing to show that the autho-
rity would have passed the Order on the basis of the other relevant and 
584 
llU1'llBWB OOUllT UPOl.TS 
(1967) 2 S.C.R. 
existing grounds. But, an Order based on several grounds some of which 
A 
att found to be no~xistent or irrelevant can be sustained if the Court is 
satisfied that the authority would have passed the Order on the basis of 
other relevant and existing grounds and the exclusion of the irrele\11nt or 
non-.,xistent grounds could not have affected the ultimate opinion or 
decision. (594 E-G] 
Dwarka Das Bhatia v. State of lammu and Kashmir, [1965] S.C.R 948. 
Dhiraji/al Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 
B 
27i. State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mahapatra, [1963] Supp. 1 S.CR. 
648 and Naursinlia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.J.R [1958] M.P. 397, 
referred to. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2340 of 1966· 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1966 
of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Appli-
C 
cation No. 940 of 1965. 
M. C. Setalvad, N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for appellant 
No. I. 
. 
A. S. Bobde, and S. G. Kukdey, for respondent No. I. 
M. M. Kinkhede, G. L. Sang/ii and A. 
G. Ratnapa r khi, for 
D 
respondents Nos. 3-16, 19-31, 33, 34, 36-45, 47-53, 55 and 57. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bacbawat, J. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by 
respondent No. I before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High 
Court, challenging the show-cause notice dated July 21. 1965 and 
the order dated September 29, 1965, superseding the mu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.