Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. On 19 April 2001 the court had an occasion to deal with certain matters relating to the Patna Municipal Corporation (CWJC No. 1233 of 1997). The issue in that petition was a claim of employees seeking time bound promotion. The claim was being tossed between the Corporation and the State. Government. The Patna Municipal Corporation is run by an Administrator. It is not functioning as local self government which if it had been these issues focal to an institution which ought to self govern itself with elected representatives, could be resolved by local government.

2. Today, in the matter under consideration the court has before it issues raised by the Central Bihar Chamber of Commerce and others, questioning the continued functioning of an Administrator over the Gaya Municipal Corporation. The issue is not so much as about collection of the local taxes or that rateable taxes are not to be paid. Primarily, the Bihar Chamber of Commerce questions the Administrator in running the municipal corporation sans local representatives. In no uncertain terms it is contended that this indefinite period of rule by an Administrator over a city corporation cannot go on and the citizens of Gaya are entitled to run the corporation through elected representatives so that it has a true personality of local self government.

3. On behalf of the Administrator, his functioning is being justified under law, by relying on what is known as "Transitory Provisions" of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 . The court will revert to this aspect later. One aspect needs to be noticed and the situation seems more blatant after the Constitution of India was amended by the 73rd & 74th amendments in 1992 and the Constitution saw the insertion of the chapters on the Panchayats and the Municipalities as Chapter IX & IXA. The Gaya Municipal Corporation owes it origins to the. year 1983. The law under which the Gaya Municipal Corporation receives its incorporation is by borrowing the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 . There did not seem to be any ingenuinity or originality to give local government to Gaya as chapter, verse and to the letter the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 was simply made applicable to the urban limits of Gaya. Thus, Gaya as a municipality or a corporation opened its innings with an Administrator in 1983. This in itself is a very sad reflection on the erosion of local self government in Bihar.

4. When the Constitution was amended with insertion of chapters on Panchayats and Municipalities, no time should have been lost and within six months of the amendments taking effect local bodies should have started functioning with full attributes of self government. As a generality in a democracy local self government is the normalcy of the situation; running local bodies without elected representatives and in their place, an Administrator, is an abnormality.

5. The Administrator of the Gaya Municipal Corporation seems to justify his existence under the Transitory Provisions spelled out in Section 545 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. Rather, than reproduce the argument on the law on which he justifies to act without local representatives is best seen side by side with the provisions of the Constitution. The Court is re- producing the "Transitory Provisions" on the left hand side and as opposed to it the provision of the Constitution of India, on the duration of Municipalities etc. as spelled out under Article 243 U.

545. Transitory Provisions. (1) The State Government may, by notification, appoint for such period not exceeding six months [from the date of the commencement of this Act] as may be specified in the notification, a person to be calied the Administrator to exercise, perform or discharge the powers, duties and functions which are conferred or imposed by or under this Act on the Corporation the Standing Committee and the Chief Executive Officer, and the Administrator shall be deem