Is the AMC Commissioner so weak that every resolution must go to the State? High Court demands a Personal Affidavit with that Answer

In a sharp rebuke to both the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Gujarat State Government, the Gujarat High Court stayed a State order suspending three AMC resolutions on waiver of late payment charges under its advertisement policy, with Justice Niral M Mehta pulling no punches in questioning whether the Municipal Commissioner had any legal authority to refer the resolutions to the State in the first place, and whether the State had any genuine justification for acting on them.

The dispute arose when the AMC's Standing Committee passed resolutions offering advertisers and advertising agencies a waiver on late payment charges under its advertisement policy, subject to clearance of outstanding dues by April 30. Rather than implementing the resolutions, the Municipal Commissioner wrote to the State Government, which thereupon invoked Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, a supervisory power allowing the State to suspend municipal resolutions, and passed a one-page order suspending all three resolutions.

Aggrieved advertisers and advertising agencies approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226, seeking to quash the suspension order and restrain the Corporation from taking any coercive action on outstanding dues pending the litigation. Their counsel pointed out that the State's order was passed without hearing the petitioners, without providing any reasons, and appeared to be nothing more than a mechanical endorsement of the Commissioner's letter, a single page response to what was essentially a municipal policy decision.

Justice Mehta was visibly unimpressed by both respondents. The Court found prima facie that the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to refer the resolutions to the State as though seeking sanction, Section 451 being a supervisory check, not a rubber-stamp mechanism triggered on the Commissioner's request. The State's conduct fared no better, with the Court observing it had acted "in a mechanical manner without adherence to principle of natural justice." The bench's oral observations left little room for ambiguity, "Absolutely illegal order, illegal action and non application of mind. Corporation and State." 

The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to file a personal affidavit explaining how many resolutions he had been referring to the State government in this manner, ordered the Joint Secretary to appear and explain the basis of the suspension, and granted an ad-interim stay on the State's suspension order. The matter is listed for further hearing on April 6.