1 to 15. ORDER :- xx xx.

16. In the instant case, two questions are involved :

(1) Disposal of public property by the "State" or "other authorities" as defined under Art.12 of the Constitution.

(2) Disposal of the property by an authority which is required to hold the property as trustee as per the provisions of the Act by which the authority is constituted and which is supposed to run its affair in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

17. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner is an elected councillor of the Municipality. He represents a section of the people who have reposed confidence in him believing that he will safeguard their interests as far as the affairs of the Municipality is concerned. It is his duty to see that the Municipality acts in the best interest of the people. It is also his duty to see that the Municipality acts in accordance with law. Apart from the fact that whether he has been actuated by the high motives of public interest litigation or not, the fact remains that by virtue of his office as Councillor, he is required to perform his duties as stated above. He will be answerable to the people if he fails in the discharge of his duties. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner who was an elected representatives of the people and who was a sitting councillor at the time of filing of this petition, is a busybody and that he is an intermeddler and a foreigner so far as the affairs of the Municipality are concerned. As per the provisions of the Act itself, the municipal government vests in the Municipality (see S.44 (1) of the Act). A Municipality means the entire general body, meaning thereby all the councillors of the Municipality, who constitute the general body of the Municipality. Thus the petitioner is a part of the Municipality. As per the statute itself, the municipal government vests in the Municipality. Therefore he is also a part of the governing

body. When he feels that the Municipality is not acting in the best interest of the society and in accordance with the provisions of law, certainly he will be a person who can be said to be as aggrieved person though he may not have direct or indirect interest in the subject matter which is to be decided by the Municipality or which is a matter of dispute. In this view of the matter, the contention that the petitioner is a busybody and at his instance, the question regarding disposal of the property in favour of respondent No.2-Society cannot be decided has got to be rejected.

18. The argument that the petitioner has not filed the petition as public interest litigation and the same is not for and on behalf of the same is not for and on behalf poor, ignorant or socially and economically backward class of people who may otherwise be unable to approach the Court and therefore fore the same be rejected, may be examined. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent-Municipality that the petition is actuated by political motives and the same is filed with a view to vindicate ones personal ego or personal political interest. In democratic form of government existence of political party cannot be denied. Therefore, in such cases, it is bound to happen that a person who is in public life and a member of any political party or group may have certain other motives also. Such motives may be political or may not be political. They may be express or implicit. Sometimes such motives may have been directly articulated or may be hidden and therefore difficult to be unearthed by simple exercise of reading the averments in a petition. But in such cases, this aspect should pale into insignificance and should not be given over much importance.

19. The paramount consideration should be, what are the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner? Will it not have repercussions on the public interest? Will it not serve the interest of a sizeable section of the society? Will it not be in the interest of society to see that the property belonging