IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh, JJ.
Sh. Chet Ram Son Of Sh. Jamir Dev - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.1610 Of 2021
Decided On : 15-10-2022
Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 - Section 4, 3, (2), 5, 6, 7 - Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 - Section 27 - Illegally Created Nagar Panchayat - Aggrieved by final Notification whereby Nagar Panchayat, has been created out of different revenue estates, petitioners, who are permanent residents of villages have filed instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs. [Para 11]
Finding of the Court:
When provisions of Section 3 of Act clearly mandated authorities to pass an order of detention at one time for a period not exceeding three months only, Government Order in present case, directing detention of husband of appellant for a period of twelve months at a stretch is clear violation of prescribed manner and contrary to provisions of law - Government cannot direct or extend period of detention up to maximum period of twelve months, in one stroke, ignoring cautious legislative intention that even order of extension of detention must not exceed three months at any one time - One should not ignore underlying principles while passing orders of detention or extending detention period from time to time - It is more than settled that function of Government in establishing a Nagar Panchayat under Act is neither executive nor administrative, but is a legislative process - Therefore, no judicial duty is laid on Government in discharge of statutory duties - Only question to be examined is whether statutory provisions have been complied with .
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by the final Notification dated 27.10.2020 whereby the Nagar Panchayat, Ani, has been created out of the different revenue estates, the petitioners, who are the permanent residents of villages of Tehsil Ani, have filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
“i). That the respondents be directed to produce total record of the case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court right from the day when the proceedings were initiated for creation of Nagar Panchayat, Ani till final Notification dated 27.10.2020.
ii) That final Notification dated 27.10.2020 whereby Nagar Panchayat Ani has been created out of the different revenue estates out of the total area of aforesaid Panchayats vide Annexure P-4 may be set aside and quashed.”
2. According to the petitioners, the State of Himachal Pradesh had on the demand of the inhabitants of the different villages created various Gram Panchayats, which are functioning properly and being more beneficial and desirable, the respondents could not have illegally created Nagar Panchayat, Ani by taking out the following villages:-
i) Muhal Manjhadesh from Gram Panchayat, Bakhnao.
ii) Muhal Franali from Gram Panchayat, Ani.
iii) Muhal Karana from Gram Panchayat, Karana.
iv) Muhal Kungas from Gram Panchayat, Kungas.
v) Muhal Jaban from Gram Panchayat Namhog.
3. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu of his own and in absence of any resolution on behalf of any of the panchayats for creation of Nagar Panchayat, Ani, recommended the matter to the Director, Urban Development vide his letter dated 13.08.2020. Respondent No.1, in turn, issued a Notification dated 25.08.2020 whereby a proposal was made for constitution of the Nagar Panchayat, Nirmand, consisting of Muhal Manjhadesh of Gram Panchayat Bakhnao, Muhal Franali of Gram Panchayat, Ani, Muhal Karana of Gram Panchayat, Karana, Muhal Kungas of Gram Panchayat, Kungas and Muhal Jaban of Gram Panchayat, Namhog, and not for Ani. Though at the end of the Notification, it is mentioned that Nagar Panchayat was proposed to be created for Ani.
4. In terms of the Notification, objections/ suggestions were invited to be filed within six weeks from the date of publication of the Notification which was published on 14.09.2020. Various objections were filed, but, according to the petitioners, the same were not considered and despite this the final Notification creating Nagar Panchayat, Ani was issued vide Notification dated 27.10.2020, which is illegal for not only excluding the five villages as mentioned aforesaid, but also because there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act’) inasmuch as wrong publication of Notification dated 25.08.2020.
5. It is further averred that as per proposal in Notification dated 25.08.2020, area of Muhal Majhadesh in Gram Panchayat, Bakhnao was proposed to be taken from Khasra No. 2300 to 2850, but, as per Notification dated 27.10.2020, additional area of Khasra Nos. 8284 and 8285 has been taken for creation of Nagar Panchayat, Ani. In Muhal Karana, there was proposal for taking Khasra Nos.2191 to 2460, however, additional area of Khasra No. 2184 to 2190 has been taken in the final Notification though there was no such proposal. As regards Muhal Kungas, there was a proposal to put area of Khasra Nos. 2807 to 2841 in Nagar Panchayat, but all these khasra numbers have been given up and areas of Khasra Nos. 1171 to 1187, 2747, 2801, 2876 and 2877 have been taken up for inclusion of Nagar Panchayat. In the absence of any proposal in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, these areas could not be taken out of respective Gram Panchayats for inclusion in Nagar Panchayat.
6. In addition to the above, it has also been averred that the inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat, who belong to the backward area, were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before issuing the final Notification dated 27.10.2020. Having faile
Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and others
Rao Shiv Bahadw Singh & Anr. V. State of Vindhya Pndwh
State of Utter Pradesh v. Singhan Singh & Ors.
Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (NCGM) vs. Abhilash Lal and others
Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank and others
Union of India and others vs. Mahendra Singh
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and others vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others
SupremeToday
Exclusion of local area from a municipal area.- (1) Any inhabitant of a municipal area or local area in respect of which a notification has been published under section 6 may, if he objects to the ex....
Function of Government in establishing a Nagar Panchayat under Act is neither executive nor administrative, but is a legislative process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Notifications issued under Section 5(1)(B) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 must fulfill the requirements of Article 243Q of the....
Constitutional mandates for establishing municipalities under Article 243Q can be flexibly interpreted, allowing various factors for inclusion without strict adherence to all listed criteria.
The requirement for a personal hearing is mandatory before altering municipal limits; failure to grant it renders such notices invalid, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice in administ....
The notifications for municipal formation and alteration complied with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.
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.