SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Khetoliya and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1814 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 28102 of 2015
Decided On : 10-03-2022
notification - Municipal Board - Article 243Q, Section 5 of the Municipalities Act - The court discussed the scope of Part IXA of the Constitution and Article 243Q, and found that the two notifications under Article 243Q and Section 5 of the Municipalities Act were not warranted. The court also emphasized the legislative competence of the State Legislature in respect of municipalities, with the limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against an order setting aside a notification declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a Municipal Board. The High Court found that no public notification as contemplated under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution was produced, specifying Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a 'transitional area', and thus, it cannot be declared as a Municipal Board.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court erred in law to quash the notification issued. The State Legislature alone is competent to legislate in respect of municipalities, with the limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution.
Issues: The scope of Part IXA of the Constitution, the necessity of two notifications under Article 243Q and Section 5 of the Municipalities Act, and the legislative competence of the State Legislature in respect of municipalities.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Legislature alone is competent to legislate in respect of municipalities, with the limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The order of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan dated 28.4.2015 whereby a notification dated 12.8.2014 declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas, District Bharatpur as Municipal Board was set aside. The High Court found that no public notification as contemplated under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India has been produced specifying Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a “transitional area” and thus, it cannot be declared as a Municipal Board.
2. The Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 introduced Part IXA in the Constitution which came into force on 20.4.1993. The Statement of Objects and Reasons as was published in the Gazette on 16.09.1991 when the Bill was introduced is as under:
(2) Having regard to these inadequacies, it is considered necessary that provisions relating to Urban Local Bodies are incorporated in the Constitution particularly for:
(i) putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the Urban Local Bodies with respect to:
(a) the functions and taxation powers.
(b) arrangements for revenue sharing.
(ii) Ensuring regular conduct of elections.
(iii) ensuring timely elections in the case of super-session.
(iv) providing adequate representation for the weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women.
(3) Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new part relating to the Urban Local Bodies in the Constitution to provide for:
(a) constitution of three types of Municipalities:
(i) Nagar Panchayats for areas in transition from a rural area to urban area.
(ii) Municipal Councils for smaller urban areas.
(iii) Municipal Corporations for larger urban areas. The broad criteria for specifying the said areas is being provided in the proposed article 243-0.
(b) composition of Municipalities, which will be decided by the Legislature of a State, having the following features:
(i) persons to be chosen by direct election.
(ii) representation of Chairpersons of Committees, if any, at ward or other levels in the Municipalities.
(iii) representation of persons having special knowledge or experience of Municipal Administration in Municipalities (without voting rights).
(c) election of Chairpersons of a Municipality in the manner specified in the State law.
(d) constitution of Committees at ward level or other level or levels within the territorial area of a Municipality as may be provided in the State law.
(e) reservation of seats in every Municipality:
(i) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population of which not less than one-third shall be for women.
(ii) for women which shall not less than one-third of the total number of seats.
(iii) in favour of backward class of citizens if so provided by the Legislature of the State.
(iv) for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women in the office of Chairpersons as may be specified in the State law.
(f) fixed tenure of 5 years for the Municipality and re-election within six months of end of tenure. If a Municipality is dissolved before expiration of its duration, elections to be held within a period of six months of its dissolution.
(g) devolution by the State Legislature of powers and responsibilities upon the Municipalities with respect to preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and for the implementation of development schemes as may be required to enable them to function as institutions of self-government.
(h) levy of taxes and duties by Municipalities, assigning of such taxes and duties to
The State Legislature alone is competent to legislate in respect of municipalities, with the limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of P....
The notifications for municipal formation and alteration complied with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.
The court affirmed that the Governor's discretion in designating municipalities must adhere to specified constitutional parameters, and the provisions of the Act of 2009 prevail over those of the Act....
The court affirmed that notifications regarding municipalities must adhere to constitutional parameters, and the principle of natural justice does not apply without express provisions requiring notic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Notifications issued under Section 5(1)(B) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 must fulfill the requirements of Article 243Q of the....
The provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 shall have no application in respect of the areas to which the provisions of the Municipal Act are applied.
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.