The court emphasized the discretion of the State Government to declare its intention to specify an area as a larger urban area, medium urban area, or transitional area, and the mandatory nature of the provisos attached to Section 3(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

The Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, through its notification dated 03.03.2021, issued under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 has costituted Singhiya Nagar Panchayat by including Gram Panchayat Singhiya-I (part), Singhiya-II, and Singhiya III in the district of Samastipur, within its area. The said notification is under challenge in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are residents of village Singhiya. It is the petitioners’ case that the said notification does not fulfill the statutory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (Panchayat Raj Act, for brevity) read with the provisions contained under Article 243 Q(2) of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (Municipal Act, for brevity).

2. It has been asserted in the writ petition that Section 3(1) of the Municipal Act empowers the State Government to declare its intention to constitute a municipal area, but after making such enquiry, as it may deem fit, having regard to the population of any urban area, density of population therein, the revenue generated for the local administration of such area, percentage of employment in nonagricultural activities in such area, the economic importance of such area, and other factors as may be prescribed. However, without conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Municipal Act, the State Government of Bihar asked the respective District Magistrates to send their proposal for constitution of the urban bodies and, accordingly, the District Magistrate Samastipur sent a proposal for constitution of Singhiya Nagar Panchayat including within its area the aforesaid 3 Gram Panachayats, namely, Singhiya-I, Singhiya-II, and Singhiya-III. It is specific case in the writ petition that since there was no enquiry held, as stipulated under Section 3 (1) of the Municipal Act, before issuance of notification containing declaration of intention to constitute Singhiya Nagar Panchayat under Section 4 of the Municipal Act, the subsequent notification constituting Singhiya Nagar Panchayat under Section 6 of the Act is unsustainable.

3. It is also stated that availing the liberty under Section 5 of the Municipal Act to raise objection against proposed constitution of Singhiya Nagar Panchayat, an objection was filed by the petitioners and others on 22.01.2021 raising following issues:

(i) No enquiry was held, as stipulated under Section 3

(1) of the Minicipal Act, inasmuch as, no officer had ever visited the village Singhiya for the enquiry to ascertain whether the area and population residing therein do fulfill the requirements of its urbanization, as contemplated under Section 243 Q (2) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Under Section 11 of the Panchayat Raj Act, power has been conferred upon the District Magistrate to alter the boundary of any Gram Panchayat for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion of certain area in and from the Gram Panchayat but after consultation with the Gram Panchayat, likely to be affected by such decision. However, before sending of the proposal by the District Magistrate for constitution of Singhiya Nagar Panchayat, none of the 3 Gram Panchayats were consulted by the District Magistrate.

(iii) The population residing in the area did not fulfill the requirement of the amended provision of the second proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Municipal Act.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that according to 2011 census, the total population of village Singhiya was 31,952. Total number of workers, out of the said total population is 9,371 out of which 1,810 is the population of farmers and 2475 is the population of agricultural labourers. The number of non-agricultural labourers is 1,025 only. It is accordingly the petitioners’ case that total number of nonagricultural labourers, if deducted from tot