Three Resolutions in One Chaotic Session
A municipal corporation in a city of 9.4 lakh people, with 78 elected councillors, passes three resolutions at a general body meeting on 12 September. First, it creates a ‘sanitation and trade cess’ of ₹600 a year on every commercial establishment, to take effect on 1 October and to be collected by the corporation's own staff. Second, it records lack of confidence in the municipal commissioner and asks the state government to transfer her within fifteen days. Third, it approves a ₹40 crore road-resurfacing contract, although the tender committee's evaluation report was never placed before the house. The meeting was convened with 48 hours' notice; the corporation's procedure regulations require seven clear days' notice and circulation of the agenda and reports. Forty-two councillors attended; the quorum under the state Act is one-fourth of the total strength. The opposition's 30 members walked out before the votes. The mayor supports all three resolutions and must decide what to certify and forward to the state government.
1. Can the corporation bring the cess into force on 1 October?
Read the worked answer
Almost certainly not, and the mayor should not certify it for implementation.
A municipal corporation's functional competence is not a taxing power. Sanitation is a municipal function under the Twelfth Schedule framework, but Article 243X of the Constitution permits a municipality to levy taxes only as authorised by the state legislature, and the state Municipalities Act typically attaches conditions: a specific enabling provision, prior publication of the draft, an opportunity for objections, and government sanction or notification. The record here shows none of these. A resolution of the general body is an expression of the elected body's will; it is not itself a delegation of the legislature's taxing power.
The date compounds the problem. Even a validly sanctioned levy needs a transition period before collection, and retrospective or instant imposition on traders invites writ petitions and a stay that would embarrass the corporation more than a delay would. The practical course is to refer the resolution to the state government with a legal opinion, ask for the enabling notification, and fix 1 April as the realistic commencement date after following the statutory procedure.
2. What may the mayor lawfully do with the resolution expressing lack of confidence in the municipal commissioner?
Read the worked answer
The corporation can express an opinion; it cannot remove the commissioner. Under state municipal law the commissioner is appointed by the state government and holds office at its pleasure, precisely so that the permanent executive is not dependent on the day-to-day majority in the house. An elected body that could dismiss its own executive would blur the separation between deliberative and executive functions that the 74th Amendment framework assumes.
The resolution is therefore a recommendation, and the mayor should forward it. Withholding a resolution that has been passed is itself improper, and it would convert a political dispute into an administrative concealment. Forwarding does not concede that the grounds are sound: the covering letter should record factually what the house resolved, and the mayor may add her own note if she disagrees.
The one legitimate check is procedural. If the meeting was not validly convened, the mayor should say so in the forwarding letter and ask the state to consider the resolution on its merits regardless, because the state's power to transfer does not depend on a valid corporation resolution. The decision itself remains the state's.
3. Advise the mayor on the road-resurfacing contract, distinguishing the defects that matter from the ones that do not.
Read the worked answer
Three defects have been raised; they are not of equal weight.
Quorum is not a defect. The state Act sets quorum at one-fourth of total strength, that is about 20 of 78; 42 members were present and the house was competent to transact business. The opposition's walkout does not invalidate proceedings, however politically convenient it later becomes to say so.
Notice is a real but curable defect. The regulations require seven clear days with agenda and reports; 48 hours were given, and the tender evaluation report was never circulated at all. A decision taken without the mandatory material before members is vulnerable on the ground that the house did not apply its mind.
Substance is the gravest defect. Awarding a ₹40 crore contract without the tender committee's report before the house means the council approved an expenditure it could not evaluate. The mayor should not sign the contract. The resolution should be re-tabled at a properly convened meeting with the evaluation report and the tender committee's minutes on the table, and the award recorded with reasons. If urgency is claimed, the correct route is the standing committee or the commissioner's emergency powers under the Act, not a defective general body vote.