The Kerala High Court has recently observed that individuals who have not prevailed in a resolution passed by the Municipal Council, particularly those belonging to the minority or dissenting factions, are precluded from seeking redress through the jurisdiction provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to contest the said resolution.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated, "It must be observed that if those persons who dissent against a decision taken by the Municipal Council are permitted to challenge the decisions of the Municipality, it will put spokes in the wheels of governance and administration. Every decision taken by the Municipal Council or local authority will be challenged by the minority, and the entire functioning of the local authority can come to a standstill. Such a procedure cannot be permitted under law. The principle that a decision taken by the majority becomes the decision of the house, including that of the minority, cannot be diluted, lest it lead to chaos and confusion."

The Court was dealing with 3 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution where a dispute arose after one Janeesh was identified as a prospective licensee for a tourist home owned by Thrissur Corporation. The Councillors who contested the resolution of the Council, wherein Janeesh was identified as the prospective licensee, asserted that both discussion and voting were absent on the specific agenda during the mentioned meeting.

According to the Councillors, the Mayor of the Corporation had selected Janeesh arbitrarily, contrary to the mandate of the Statute and even permitted him to deposit the security deposit without the decision of the Council. It was also argued that among the 54 Councillors, 30 had expressed dissent during the meeting, contending that the decision could not have been validly approved under such circumstances.

The Court observed that the tender process had been initiated following the lack of success in five public auctions, as per the procedure outlined in Section 215(2)(c) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Justice Thomas stated, "It is evident that after failing in five public auctions, the Corporation had, at the initiative of the Mayor, resorted to tender proceedings by inviting quotes from the public. Since five persons had offered their quotes, which included even the prior licensee, Smt Omana Asokan, it is clear that there was public notice, and a competitive tender proceeding was conducted, with th highest amongst the tenderers selected as the licensee. In the circumstances of the case, the resort to tender proceedings was justified, and the rate offered was also found to be competitive."

Expressing strong disapproval of the disturbance caused by the 30 Councillors during the meeting, the Court took a strict stance on the matter and observed, "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. They cannot thereafter turn around and object to the decisions taken therein as the governance of the Corporation has to be carried on, and they had opted out of the discussions and the consequent decision. If time-bound decisions are not taken, it would cause prejudice to the public at large."

Continuing, the Court stated, "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. The Councillors must be reminded that the decisions taken by the Municipal Council will be binding. 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. Further, it falls within the realm of disputed facts and cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226."

The Judge accordingly allowed the Corporation to proceed to hand over the building to Janeesh as per the terms of the agreement and in accordance with law and also to permit him to carry out the repair and renovation works.

Cause Title: Janeesh P.S. v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Ors. [WP(C) NO. 3668 OF 2023]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Bechu Kurian ThomasKerala High Court

Ramey Krishan Rana