ORDER
1. The Municipal Committee, Yamunanagar and its three functionaries are the petitioners. The trial Court restrained them from implementing the Budget passed on March, 24, 1993. The appeal having been dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present revision petition. The sequence of events may be briefly noticed.
2. The Municipal Committee had constituted a Finance Sub-Commitee as contemplated under the ‘Account Code’. A meeting of this Finance Sub-Committee was fixed for January 5, 1993 to consider the budget proposals. Members of the Sub-Committee did nol attend the meeting. The meeting was again fixed for January 13, 1993. The members did not meet even this time. Finally, on January 30, 1993, the term of the Finance Sub-Committee expired. The Committee did not constitute a fresh Finance Sub-Committee. Faced with this situation, the President on March 9, 1993 invoked his emergency powers under Section 35 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and submitted the Budget proposals to the Committee. On March 24, 1993, the Municipal Committee accepted the proposal. This was approved by the Commissioner, Ambaia Division, on June 19, 1993.
3. On April 22, 1993, five Municipal Commissioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (the present petitioners) from implementing the decision regarding the Budget. Along with, they filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for the grant of a temporary injunction. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court. The petitioners filed an appeal. The learned appellate Court inter alia found that “the President has wrongly invoked the emergency provisions of Section 35 of the Act and passed the budget on 9-3-93. Its subsequent approval by the committee vide resolution dt. 24-3-93 cannot rectify the illegal act of the President.” Consequently, it
held that “the legal procedure, prescribed under the Act, has not been followed and the action of the President is, therefore, patently wrong. It will cause great loss to the State exchequer. The public is also, therefore, interested along with the present plaintiffs, who arc municipal commissions.” Accordingly, it up held the decision of the trial Court and affirmed the order of temporary injunction passed by it. The petitioners challenge this order as being wholly illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act as well as the Account Code.
4. Mr. J.K. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Finance Sub-Committee is only a recommendatory body and the fact that the Budget proposals had not been approved by the Finance Subcommittee, cannot render the decision of the Committee which has been approved by the Commissioner as illegal or violative of the provisions of the Act and the Municipal Account Code. He further submits that the provisions are in any case merely directory and that the action of the petitioners was in strict conformity with the provisions of law. On the other hand, Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the action of the President was not within the provisions of Section 35 and consequently, the injunction granted by the Courts below should not be vacated.
5. The Municipal Account Code is a compilation of rules “published under Section 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 vide Punjab Government Notification No. 11961 dated the 4th April 1930. . . . . .”. Chapter II of this Code relates to the preparation and finalisation of Budget. Rule 11.1 requires the Committee to submit the Budget (an estimate of its income and expenditure in the ensuing financial year) to the Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner. The procedure that has to be followed for the purpose has been laid down in Rules 11.2 to 11.6. Rule 11.2 contemplates that the Secretary of the Committee in consultation with the heads of the Departments shall prepare the rough estimates. Under Rule 11.3, these rough estimate which have been described as
‘The first edition of the budget’, have to be submitted to the Sub-Committee which may have been appointed by the Committee. In case, a sub-committee has not been appointed in respect of any department, the Head of the Department is authorised to submit the proposal to the Secretary. This preliminary budget as prepared by the sub-committees is required to be laid before “the Finance Sub-Committee, if any, or if there is no Finance Sub-Committee, before the President, together with.. . ..” as required under Rule 11.4. Rule 11.5 provides that the matter shall then be considered by the Finance Sub-Committee and “a second edition of the budget embodying the decisions of the Finance Sub-Committee shall then be prepared. …..”
Clause (2) of this Rule provides as under:–
“If there is no Finance Sub-Committee, the functions of such Sub-Committee under the provisions of sub-rule (1), shall be performed by the President.”
Thereafter, under Rule 11.6, the matter is placed before the Committee. On its having been passed, it has to be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Division who is authorised to give “final sanction.”
6. A perusal of these rules clearly shows that a merely recommendatory function has been assigned to the Finance Sub-Committee and in case, such a Committee does not exist, its functions are required to be performed by the President.
7. What is the position in the present case? Admittedly, the budget proposals had been submitted to the Finance Sub-Committee. Its meeting had been fixed for January 5 and January 13, 1993. It did not forward any recommendations till January 30, 1993 when its term expired. Since a new Finance Sub-Committee had not been constituted, the President had no choice but to submit the proposals to the Committee. This duty is clearly imposed on him under Rule 11.5(2). He invoked the provisions of Section 35 of the Act which authorises him to take suitable action in case he is of the opinion that there is an emergency. Since the Finance Sub-Committee was not in existence and the budget
proposals were necessarily required to be submitted to the Commissioner, the President submitted his proposal for the consideration of the Committee on March 9, 1993. This was approved by the Committee on March 24, 1993. Prima facie, there was nothing wrong with the action of the President. The budget proposals are urgent and necessary for the proper functioning of the Committee. The delay in the passing of the budget can create administrative problems. If in the circumstances of the case, the President bona fide formed an opinion that there was an emergency which required an immediate action, it cannot be said that he acted illegally or in excess of his jurisdiction. Still further, under the provisions of Rule 11.5(2) of the Code as referred to above, the President had the duty to submit the proposal to the Committee. This is precisely what he did. His action was in strict conformity with the provisions of the Rules. Admittedly, the term of the Finance Sub-Committee had expired on January 30, 1993 and since a new Sub-Committee had not been constituted, its functions had to be necessarily performed by the President. Still further, in spite of being asked, it has not been shown by the learned counsel for the respondents that the other provisions of the Rules had not been followed by the President.
8. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, it appears that the action of the President was in conformity with law. The finding of the Courts below that he violated the provisions of the Act and the procedure prescribed thereunder, cannot be sustained.
9. Accordingly, this revision petition is
accepted. The injunction granted by the
Courts below is vacated. However, it is hoped
that the petitioners shall not use this opportunity to squander the money that may be
available. Since the financial year has virtually ended, it is hoped that only such expenditure as is absolutely essential for meeting
necessary expenses, shall be incurred. In the
circumstances, there will be no order as to
costs.
10. Revision allowed.