SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.D. OJHA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Sundardas Kanyalal Bhathija and others, Appellants
Versus
The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others, Respondents.
C.A. Nos.5736 of 1985 and 508 of 1986
Decided on 13-7-1989.
AND
Prahlad Hiranand Advani and others, Appellants
Versus
The Collector, Thane Maharashtra, Respondent.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. N. Keswani and Mr. R. N. Keswani, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. S. K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shishir Sharma, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. A.S. Bhasme and Mr. V. B. Joshi Advocates, with him, for Respondents.
Constitution of India – Article 14 and 226 – Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Section 3 – Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 – Section 256 – Separate identity for Ulhasnagar - Panchayat Federation - Government of Maharashtra issued a draft notification proposed formation of what is termed as Kalyan Corporation suggested merging of Municipal areas of Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivali and Ulhasnagar – Against this proposal there were many objections and representations from persons companies and authorities – Ambarnath and Ulhasnagar Municipal bodies and also some of residents submitted their representations objected to merger of their municipal areas into Corporation – It is said that in Ulhasnagar Municipal area Sindhies are predominent were victims of partition country – Being uprooted from their home land they have since settled down at Ulhasnagar – They have formed union or federation called All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation interested in having a separate identity for Ulhasnagar – Held, Question arose for consideration attempt was made to constitute a notified area as provided by including portions of four villages for such purposes residents of villages who were mostly agriculturists challenged validity of notification before High Court on ground that they had no opportunity to have their say against that notification – High Court summarily dismissed writ petition appeal before this Court it was argued that extension of notified area over Gram Panchayat limits would involve civil consequences – Appellants that before notified area was constituted in terms people of locality should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard and Administrative decision by State Government should have been taken after considering view of residents – Denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with scheme of rule of law governing our society – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:—The case involved in these two appeals, with leave, seems indeed straight forward enough, but the High Court of Bombay made it, as we venture to think, unsatisfactory and in a sense against judicial propriety and decorum.
2. The facts which are of central importance may be stated as follows:
On June 19, 1982, the Government of Maharashtra issued a draft notification under S. 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (the "Act"). The draft notification proposed the formation of what is termed as "Kalyan Corporation" (the "Corporation"). It suggested the merging of Municipal areas of Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivali and Ulhasnagar. Against this proposal, there were many objections and representations from persons, companies and the authorities. Ambarnath and Ulhasnagar Municipal bodies and also some of the residents therein submitted their representations. They objected to the merger of their municipal areas into the Corporation. It is said that in Ulhasnagar Municipal area, Sindhies are predominent. In 1947, they were the victims of partition of the country. Being uprooted from their home land, they have since settled down at Ulhasnagar. They have formed union or federation called the All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation. It is interested in having a separate identity for Ulhasnagar. The Federation challenged the said draft notification by a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The writ petition was not disposed of on merits. It was permitted to be withdrawn on an assurance given by the Government. The Government gave the assurance that the representatives of the Federation would be given an opportunity of being heard before taking a final decision. As per the assurance, they were given personal hearing on their representations. The others who have filed similar representations were not heard. But their objections or representations were duly considered. Thereupon, the Government decided to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed Corporation. Accordingly, a notification under S. 3(2) of the Act was issued. The Corporation was thus constituted without Ulhasnagar. That was the only alteration made in the proposal earlier notified. All other areas indicated in the draft notification were merged in the Corporation.
3. The residents of Ambarnath Municipal areas were not satisfied. They were, perhaps, more worried by the exclusion of Ulhasnagar than the inclusion of their own area. They moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notification issued under S. 3(2) of the Act. They, inter alia, contended that the action of the Government affording an opportunity of being heard only to the Federation and not to other objectors was contrary to Article 14. It was a hostile discrimination to hear only one of the objectors. They asserted that the establishment of the Corporation without Ulhasnagar Municipal area, having regard to the geographical contiguity was unintelligible and incomprehensible. It was arbitrary and opposed to the object of the Act. They also contended that there ought to have been a fresh draft notification after taking a decision to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposal. With similar contentions and for the same relief, there was another writ petition before the High Court. It was filed by the National Rayon Corporation Limited which is a company located within the Municipal limits of Ambarnath.
4. The Sindhi Panchayat Federation was not a party to the writ petitions. It was, however, allowed as an intervener. Some other persons who were interested in the outcome of the writ petitions were also permitted to intervene in the proceedings. They supported the stand taken by the Government which was the main respondent in the writ petitions.
5. The State in its counter affidavit resisted the petitioners claim raising several grounds. The first point to be noted in this context is this
"That the formation of Municipal Corporation under S. 3 of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.