Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Whether the acts of the Chairman of the Trust in executing agreement and power of Attorney, a trustee of public trust and property, amounts to squandering away of the same and, thus, void?
6. Whether the agreement in question is void or voidable and if it is voidable, whether the Trust is required to initiate positive action to seek declaration that such agreement is not enforceable and, if so, from which Court?

In The Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Bangalore's case (supra), the notification in the official gazette was not published in respect of imposition of a tax by the Local Authority. It was found that the resolution was published in the newspaper and was communicated to those affected by it and, thus, it was well known. Therefore, the publication in the Government Gazette does not affect the merits of the levy of Tax.

On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have argued that the Scheme of the statute mandates the meeting of the Trust to be held at regular intervals. The minutes thereof are required to be recorded in the minute's book to be kept for the purpose. Such minutes are required to be statutorily sent to the State Government under Section 21 of the IT Act. Once the minutes are sent to the State Government, then the State Government under section 72 of the IT Act is required to examine whether the proceedings of the Trust are in conformity with the law and the rules in force. The State Government has the power to annul or modify any proceeding which it considers to be not in conformity with the law or with the rules under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the IT Act. Rule 94 of the Rules has been framed in terms of Section 73(1) (vii) of the IT Act. Therefore, the Rules framed under the IT Act have the same force as the statute itself. Rule 94 of the Rules contemplates prior approval of the Trust. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 94 of the Rules is mandatory as it is to the effect that "no contract or agreement referred to in this sub-rule unless executed herein provides shall be binding on the Trust". Since the provision is prohibitive and absolute, therefore, Rule 94 of the Rules is mandatory provision, the violation of which will render the act of signing of agreement by the Chairman of the Trust as void. It is contended that the defect or irregularity protected under Section 101(1)(e), should not affect the merits of the case. It is only the procedural irregularity or omission which can be ignored. But the act of signing agreement by the Chairman, is without complying the provisions of law in respect of valuable property of the Trust, therefore, the same would render the agreement a nullity and void. Public responsibility placed upon the Chairman of the Trust cannot be permitted to be usurped and wasted in the manner as an individual deal with his property. He is the guardian of the public faith. The Trust is responsible for carrying out the public purpose for the public good and, therefore, the provisions of the statute have to be complied with before a valid and legally enforceable contract can be said to come in existence. The Chairman of the Trust can exercise only such powers and duties which have been entrusted to him under the IT Act. He does not have any inherent or residuary powers. Therefore, the provisions of the IT Act are to be complied with in the manner provided. The manner of entering into contract by the Trust is required to be performed in the manner contemplated in the Statute and Rules framed there under.

The provisions of Rule 94 of the Rules are couched in negative form, therefore, such rule is mandatory. Any agreement entered upon by the Chairman of the Trust in violation of such condition cannot be said to be legal and valid. Therefore, the signing of contract by the Chairman without prior approval of the Trust, in favour of the petitioner is void.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that such violation of Rule 94 of the Rules is only a procedural irregularity, therefore, the act of signing the agreement performed by the Chairman cannot be invalidated as contemplated under section 101 of the IT Act.

Thus, I find that the actions of the Chairman of the Trust, in signing the agreement in the manner noticed above lacks transparency, reasonableness and fairness in respect of contract to deal with public property. Question No.6 Whether the agreement in question is void or voidable and if it is voidable, whether the Trust is required to initiate positive action to seek declaration that such agreement is not enforceable and, if so, from which Court?

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the question whether prior approval of the Trust is necessary is a provision without any reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved as it is always open to the Trust to take the benefit of a beneficial agreement and not to choose the agreement which is detrimental to its interest. Thus, a provision of law which is not certain and vague cannot be said to be void. If such an action is voidable, then the declaration to this effect is necessary from the competent court. It is contended that, in fact, the Trust has not repudiated the agreement so far in any proceedings except taking stand in the reply to the present petition that such agreement is void. It is contended that even if prior approval was necessary that will only render the agreement voidable. Therefore, the Trust is to initiate affirmative action to obtain a finding from the competent civil Court that such agreement is not binding on the rights of the Trust but the Trust cannot avoid such agreement in proceedings for appointment of an Arbitrator. It is also contended that violation of the provisions of a Rule cannot result into an action void as such action is not a violation of mandate of the statute.