In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH H. PATIL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.U. CHANDIWAL
Sow. Chhaya Vyankatrao Hajare & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others
Writ Petition No.6365 of 2009
Decided on : 20-11-2009
Naresh H. Patil, J.
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.
2) The petitioners were elected in the Village Panchayat elections held in the year 2008 as Members of the Village Panchayat Kaij for a period of five years. The petitioners pray for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside Notification dated 31-8-2009 issued by respondent No.1 – the State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department converting Village Panchayat Kaij into a Nagar Panchayat. The writ petition was filed on 16-9-2009. Notices were issued to the respondents by this Court on 25th September 2009.
3) The petitioners contend that on 17th August 2002 the State Government issued a Government Resolution declaring its intention to convert the Gram Panchayat Kaij into a Nagar Panchayat. Reference was made in the Government Resolution to the provisions of sub section (3) of section 3 and sub section (2) of section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 and the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958. By a Proclamation dated 17th August 2002 the Urban Development Department of the State Government invited objections from persons residing in the Village Panchayat area. Reference was made by the Government to the provisions of Section 341A read with sub section (3) of section 3 and sub sections (1) and (1A) of Section 341A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 (for short “the Municipal Councils Act”). At Exhibit “C” to the writ petition the petitioners annexed certain Notifications issued under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961 (for short, “the Zilla Parishads Act”) which are undated notifications and, according to the petitioners, these notifications which are undated disclose a casual manner in which the respondents State authorities handled the issue of conversion of the Village Gram Panchayat into a Nagar Panchayat. Certain correspondence of the year 2008 between various authorities at the Panchayat Samiti level and the District level in respect of process of conversion of the Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat is placed on record. By a communication dated 5-8-2008 the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad informed the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to call special meeting of the Gram Sabha in view of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 (for short, “the Village Panchayats Act”). A meeting of the village Panchayat was held on 12-7-2008 and it was decided in the said meeting to cancel the special Gram Sabha called on 13-7-2008 and the proposal of conversion of Gram Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat was also opposed (vide Exhibit “H”). The petitioners had annexed a notification dated 31-8-2009 wherein the Urban Development Department of the State Government forwarded papers of the draft proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government for further steps. The petitioners allege that the efforts were made in the year 2008 again to call for objections which, according to the petitioners, was a fresh proposal initiated for calling objections for ascertaining the issue of conversion of the Gram Panchayat Kaij into Nagar Panchayat. But in the final notification the State Government observed that against the initial notification of 17th August 2002 no objections were received from persons residing in the village panchayat area. Even reference was made to the Resolution passed by the Village panchayat Kaij dated 12-7-2008 in the monthly meeting of the newly constituted Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the State Government decided to issue final notification and accordingly the same was issued specifying the area which would be part of Nagar Panchayat.
4) The learned counsel Shri. V.D. Salunke appearing for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of
HMT Ltd. vs. Mudappa (2007)9 SCC 768
Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 8 SCC 418
Ajit Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation (2005) 7 SCC 764
State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Council AIR 2003 SC 1659
State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739
K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 SCC 523
Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth 1977 (4) SCC 193
Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800 = AIR 1977 SC 448
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 4 = (1974) 2 SCR 348
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.