JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

A notification dated 26-12-2020 (Annexure-4) was issued by the State Government notifying the State’s intention to upgrade Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir so as to constitute a Municipal Council, Rajgir. The writ petition has been filed for quashing this notification dated 26-12-2020, issued in exercise of power of the State Government, under Section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. During pendency of the writ petition, the Municipal Council, Rajgir has finally been constituted by way of upgradation of the erstwhile Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir by issuance of a notification dated 03-03-2021, issued by the State Government, under Section 6 of the Act. The same has been assailed by way of an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2021.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the exercise for upgradation is illegal. The grounds in support of such submission are as follows:-

(i) In the process of upgradation of the Nagar Panchayat, the Authorities have not complied with the requirement of consultation with Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir as required under Section 8 of the Act.

(ii) The Authorities have also not consulted the Gram Panchayats concerned, before including the area falling within 11 villages, which have been taken out of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat Area, in violation of the mandate of Section 11 of the Act.

(iii) There is no enquiry as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act.

(iv) Inclusion of the village Hasanpur, which was a constituent of Nahub Gram Panchayat, is objected to by submitting that the residents of village Hasanpur are mostly agriculturist and the inclusion of revenue village Hasanpur leaving other villages contiguous to Nagar Panchayat Rajgir is based on extraneous consideration. It is also submitted that as per 2011 census, the revenue village Hasanpur comprises of 62.96% of main workers and cultivator workers and, therefore, the inclusion of Revenue village Hasanpur is in violation of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act.

(v) The notification dated 03-03-2021 under Section 6 of the Act merely records ^^izkIr vkifRr;ksa ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr …...”, is without assigning any reason and being a non-speaking order, is contrary to the mandate of Section 5 of the Act which obliges the State Government to consider the objection, prior to issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

(vi) The objection raised by the inhabitants has been considered by a Committee at the District Level and not by the State Government, as required under Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, the entire exercise of upgradation/constitution is unsustainable, being contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Act.

5. Petitioners’ counsel has relied upon the decisions in the case of Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 510, 2010 (4) PLJR 583 (Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2011 (1) PLJR 401 ( Anand Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in support of his submissions that based on above noted submissions/grounds the notifications dated 26-12-2020 under Section 4 of the Act, and 03-03-2021 under Section 6 of the Act, are unsustainable in the eyes of law being in violation of the statutory procedure prescribed under the Act.

6. The respondents have filed two counter affidavits.

One has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.8 (Gram Panchayat Raj, Nahub) and the other counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. The Department, in its counter affidavit, has brought on record, communication to show that an exercise, as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act, has been undertaken by the Respondent Authorities and, upon fulfillment of the requisite parameters contained in Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, the Authori