A resolution passed without strict adherence to mandatory statutory procedure lacks legal sanctity and is unenforceable.

The petitioners, 32 elected Councillors of the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the State of Chhattisgarh to implement a Resolution dated 25.03.2026.

This Resolution, passed by more than a three-fourths majority during a Special Budget Session, sought the removal of the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 5) under Section 54(2) of the CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, alleging financial irregularities and administrative misconduct.

The State authorities failed to act on the Resolution, permitting the Commissioner to continue in office.

The State contested the petition, arguing that the Resolution was procedurally void as the meeting was specifically for budget matters and the removal of the Commissioner was not on the notified agenda.

Section 54(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which mandates the removal of a Commissioner if three-fourths of elected Councillors vote for it in a meeting.

Rules 3, 5, and 19 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Procedure for Conduct of Business) Rules, 2016, which stipulate that no business other than that specified in the notice shall be transacted at a special meeting.

The doctrine from Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253) and Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu (2023 10 SCC 461), establishing that if the law prescribes a specific manner for an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

The Court reasoned that Section 54(2) powers are not self-operative and presuppose a validly convened meeting.

Under the 2016 Rules, a "Special Meeting" (such as the budget session) is strictly confined to the notified agenda.

The Court found that the proposal for the Commissioner’s removal was neither in the notice nor the agenda.

It rejected the petitioners' argument that the matter was "ancillary" under Rule 19, holding that budget approval and the removal of an executive head are distinct substantive subjects; therefore, Rule 19 could not save the Resolution.

The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards in democratic bodies are mandatory expressions of the Rule of Law, meant to ensure informed participation, and cannot be bypassed even by a numerical majority.

Consequently, since the foundational procedure was violated, the resulting Resolution lacked legal sanctity.

Since the Resolution was void ab initio, there was no corresponding legal duty upon the State to implement it, and thus a writ of mandamus could not be issued.

The petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that petitioners could pursue fresh remedies following the correct statutory procedure. No order as to costs.