Judgment

PALEKAR, J.: These Civil Appeals by certificate arise out of 23 Writ Petitions filed by owners of lands and buildings within the Municipal limits of the City of Ahmedabad. The petitioners challenged section 212 and some other allied sections of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Corporations Act) and prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad to treat the notice or notices issued to them under section 212 of the Corporations Act as null and void and further directing the Municipal authorities not to act upon the same or in furtherance of the said notice or notices. Besides the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Commissioners were also made parties to the petitions. Since the validity of the provisions of the Corporations Act was challenged the State of Gujarat was also made a respondent. All the writ petitions raised the same questions and, therefore, the High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the petitions by a common judgment. As the decision was against the Municipal authorities, they have now come in appeal.

2. For the purposes of disposal of these appeals it would be sufficient to refer to the allegations made in Special Civil Application No. 1454/1965 which is the subject matter of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 135/1968 before us. The petitioner Girdharlal Ganpatram was the owner of Survey Nos. 4222, 4223, 4224/A-B-C and 4225/A-B of Jamalpur, Ward No. 2 Ahmedabad. On these survey numbers there is a building belonging to Girdharlal, on the ground floor of which there are shops occupied by Girdharlal and his tenants.

3. The Corporations Act being Act No. LIX/1949 was enacted on December 29, 1949 and came into force on July 1, 1951. By this Act, the previous statute namely the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 was repealed.

4. Under section 210 of the Corporations Act the Municipal Commissioner is entitled to prescribe what is known as the "regular line of a public street." After following the necessary formalities, the regular line of the public street was prescribed by the Commissioner. Parts of the building of Girdharlal came within this regular line and so on 3-4-1962 the Commissioner issued a show cause notice under section 212 (1) (b) of the Corporations Act calling upon Girdharlal to show cause why the superstructure standing upon the aforesaid Survey numbers and lying within the regular line of the street be not removed and the land thereunder be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the purposes of a street. Girdharlal filed objections but they were overruled. Thereafter, with the approval of the Standing Committee, the Commissioner acting under sub-section (2) of Section 212 of the Corporation Act issued final notices to Girdharlal requiring him to pull down the building or parts thereof which offended against the regular line of the street within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. Certain proceedings followed with which we are not now concerned and thereafter on 6-2-1965, Girdharlal filed the writ petition in the High Court for the relief already referred to His contention was that section 212 and certain other allied sections of the Corporations Act were ultra virus and unconstitutional and hence the notices issued under section 212 were illegal.

5. Section 212 which is found in Chapter XIV of the Corporation Act which deals with streets, their construction, maintenance and improvement. Section 212 is one of the several sections devoted to this subject. It is as follows:

212. (1) If any building or any part thereof is within the regular line of a public street and if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is necessary to set back the building to the regular line of the street he may, if the provisions of section 211 do not apply, by written notice

(a) require the owner of such building to show cause within such period as is specified in such notice