The principles of natural justice are not attracted to the exercise of the power of dissolution of an Improvement Trust under Section 103 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Is the rule of audi alteram partem attracted inflexibly to the exercise of the power of dissolution of an Improvement Trust under Section 103 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is the spinal issue which has come to the fore in this set of 8 writ petitions assiduously assailing the dissolution of as many as 21 Improvement Trusts at one stroke within the State of Punjab by a single notification?

2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues of law are identical and the facts giving rise thereto are closely similar. It therefore, suffices to advert briefly to those in Civil Writ Petition No.2856 of 1980 (Jagdish Rai Monga V/s. The State of Punjab). Petitioner No. 1 way the Chairman whilst the other three were the trustees of the recently dissolved Bhatinda Improvement Trust. Petitioner No.1 was appointed Chairman initially for a period of one year vide notification dated 4th August, 1978 and was reappointed as such for a period of two years with effect from 10th of August, 1979 by a similar notification (Annexure-P-2). Consequently, it is the claim of the petitioners that the Chairman of the Trust is entitled to remain in office till the 10th of August, 1981, while the tenure of petitioners Nos.2 to 4, who had been elected by the Municipal Committee to the Bhatinda Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust ) extends till 24th of May, 1982. It is averred that the Trust had got sanctioned from the Punjab Government as many as four development and improvement schemes for the Bhatinda Town which were at various stages of their execution and four other schemes were under process when the untimely dissolution of the Trust halted the same in their tracks. Petitioner No.1 further avers that before his appointment as wholetime Chairman he was carrying on a flourishing private business which he had abandoned on his appointment as a wholetime Chairman of the Trust, and further that he had been discharging his duties honestly, efficiently and zealously for the all-round development and improvement of the Bhatinda Town. On the 11th of August, 1980 the Punjab Government issued the impugned notification (Annexure-P-3) under Section 103(1) of the Act, whereby 21 Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab, including the one at Bhatinda were dissolved with immediate effect. Further in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 2(c) of the aforesaid section it was further directed that the respective Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers, specified in Column 2, shall perform the functions of the Trust and the Chairman under the Act. It is also the case that before the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the Governor of Punjab also issued the Punjab Town Improvement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No.6 of 1980), copy whereof is Annexure-P-5 to the petition.

3. Petitioner No. 1 claims that he was appointed wholetime Chairman during the regime of Akali-Janata Government and he was an active member of the Janata Party before his appointment as such. It is further his claim that out of the 21 Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab which stand dissolved by the impugned notification, the Chairmen of 19 Trusts are political persons, belonging either to the Akali Party or to the then Janata Party. It is averred that after coming to power in the mid-term poll of 1980, the Congress Party wanted to remove all the aforesaid Chairmen from their position with the ulterior motive of appointing person belonging to the Congress Party in their place. It is specifically alleged that the Chief Minister and other Cabinet Ministers had been making statements that only those Improvement Trusts would be superseded which were not functioning properly but ultimately the Government decided to remove all the Chairmen by resorting to a method which is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. It is also the case that the impugned notification has been is