Judgment

ORDER:- Special leave granted.

2. It appears from the record that the appellants amended their Writ Petition before the High Court so as to include a challenge to the constitutional validity of the U. P. Municipal (Amendment) Act 45 of 1975 and the respondents also filed an affidavit in reply to the amendment. But there is a controversy between the parties as to whether the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was canvassed before the High Court. The appellants contend that the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was challenged by them but the High Court erroneously stated in the judgment under appeal that the validity of the Amendment Act was not challenged before it. The respondents submit that what the High Court has stated is correct and that in fact the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was not canvassed on behalf of the appellants. We do not propose to enter into this controversy and we will assume for the purpose of our judgment that the question regarding the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was not argued before the High Court. But, even so, we do not see any reason why we should not allow the appellants to raise this question