A Corporation Act to justify the action

By R. K. Radhakrishnan

CHENNAI, JULY 23. The recent exchanges in the Chennai Corporation have brought to the fore the relevance of an Act written at the turn of the 20th century. The Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, narrowly missed being updated and replaced by the DMK Government, which drew up a Unified Local Bodies Act.

For long, even as the city deteriorates, officials of the Corporation and the Act governing literally every profession and trade in the city, rest.

Then suddenly, for the most trivial or inexplicable reasons, the slumber gives way to animated action. With the change of guard at the Fort St. George, it is time for some action. Since legal sanction is something that gives legitimacy to any action, some feel, a better way is to seek refuge in the Act, quote section after section to justify each action.

``Action'' began immediately after the Mayor, Mr. M. K. Stalin, was arrested and jailed in the flyover scam. Acting on a written complaint from the Corporation Commissioner, the Municipal Administration department issued a showcause notice to the Corporation asking why the elected council should not be dismissed. This action of the department was aided by Section 44 A of the Act. The Act states ``if, in the opinion of the State Government, the Corporation is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it by the law or exceeds or abused its powers, the State Government may, by notification (a) dissolve the Corporation from a specified date and (b) direct that the Corporation be reconstituted with effect from a date which shall not be later than six months from the date of dissolution.''

The Mayor shot back with Section 37. This section says all communication to the Government should be addressed through him. The tussle did not end there. In a bid to shield the Commissioner, the TMC leader, Mr. P. Vetrivel, said that as per Section 40, the Commissioner could correspond with the Government.

But one rider in the Section was overlooked: this can be done only if there is an enquiry from the Government.

It was not as if the Act acquired relevance only after the elections. In April, in a tussle relating to convening a special session, both sides quoted the same rule. Finally, it boiled down to interpretation of Clause 5 in Schedule 2 of the MCMC Act. The Act states: ``The Mayor shall call a special meeting on receiving a request in writing signed by (such number of members as shall constitute not less than one-fifth of the sanctioned strength of the Council) specifying the resolution which it proposed to move.'' Both sides claimed that their stand - one, that the council should be convened and the other, it was not binding - had been approved by legal experts.

In the conflict of egos and interests, the fact that the Act can actually be put to good use seems to have been forgotten. For instance, the Corporation worked at remarkable speed to remove the growing billboard menace in the city last March and April. The drive was in accordance with an order of the Madras High Court, which upheld Section 326-J of the MCMC Act and said all hoardings visible to traffic could be removed. This has now been virtually given up.

The spotlight on the Act is a blessing in disguise, feel a section of officers. This could result in irrelevant sections being removed and might even pave the way for the revival of the Unified Act, they said.

But the new set of officials occupying positions of authority in the Municipal Administration department expressed ignorance of the Unified Local Bodies Act. ``What Unified Act,'' asked one. ``I am not aware of any such Act,'' the officer said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Anticipatory bail for 2 more in flyover case
Next     : AI Chennai-Hong Kong service, a boon to traders