Kerala High Court Allows Aggrieved Councillors To Move State Authority Against Decision Of Municipal Council To Allot Licensee For Tourist Home
The Kerala High Court has permitted aggrieved Municipal Councillors to challenge the decision of the Council regarding the identification of a prospective licensee for running 'Bini Tourist Home', a building owned by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, before the State Authority.The matter pertains to the eruption of an alleged raucous at the meeting of the Corporation Council, following...
The Kerala High Court has permitted aggrieved Municipal Councillors to challenge the decision of the Council regarding the identification of a prospective licensee for running 'Bini Tourist Home', a building owned by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, before the State Authority.
The matter pertains to the eruption of an alleged raucous at the meeting of the Corporation Council, following disputes regarding the Council's identification of a licensee for running the tourist home.
The 30 Councillors who disputed the resolution of the Council identifying one Janeesh as the prospective licensee, averred that no decision had been on the said date and that there had neither been any discussion nor any voting on that particular agenda. They added that the Mayor of the Corporation had identified Janeesh arbitrarily, and had even permitted him to give the security deposit without the decision of the Council.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun permitted the aggrieved Councillors to challenge the decision taken by the Council before the State authority within one week.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had earlier held that a losing minority or dissenter of a resolution taken by the Municipal could not take recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the resolution of the Municipal Council.
The Court had taken the view that the Municipal Council cannot challenge its own decision and that if such a procedure is given the stamp of legality, the same would result in an anomalous situation since even a sole dissenting member would become entitled to challenge the decisions of the Municipality before higher forums, which is not permitted under law.
Additionally, Justice Kurian had also taken a stern view of the disruption in a meeting of the Council by the 30 Councillors, stating that the same could result in governance and admission of the Corporation being brought to a standstill.
"The decision of the majority of the Municipal Council is, irrespective of the dissent, the decision of the dissenting minority, too. If the Councillors disrupt the proceedings and refuse to participate in the discussions, they do so at their peril. The interest of the public cannot be ignored by the elected representatives of the people by disrupting the proceedings. The Councillors are elected to voice the views of the people. The elected Councillors have no authority to disrupt the proceedings of the Council. Since those disrupting the proceedings of the Municipal Council cannot be regarded as having participated in the discussion, the allegation that 30 out of 54 Councillors dissented from the decision cannot be accepted," the Single Judge had observed.
It is on being aggrieved by the said decision permitting the Corporation to proceed with the handover of the building to the aforementioned Janeesh that the present writ appeals were filed.
The Division Bench, upon permitting the Councillors to challenge the Council's decision before the State Authority, added that if such proceedings were to be initiated,
"...the State authority shall decide the same, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge, at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the person in whose favour the agreement has been executed".
The Corporation was also directed not to proceed with the repairs of the building in question for one week if such proceedings were to be initiated.
The Court thus disposed of the appeals.
Counsel for the Appellants: Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan, C. Dheeraj Rajan, and G. Sreekumar
Counsel for the Respondents: Standing Counsel for Thrissur Corporation Santhosh Poduval and Advocate M.R. Dhanil
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
Case Title: Baburaj & Ors. v. Janeesh P.S. & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number: WA NO. 2123 OF 2023 and connected matters