By the Court.—We have heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Verma for the petitioners, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri U.N. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Umesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, Sri T.P. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.K.S. Nishith and Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed to quash the notifications dated 1.10.2009, Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby respondent No. 1, State Government has declared and constituted larger Municipality (Nagar Nigam) in place of Municipal Council, Saharanpur. It is also prayed that the respondents be also directed not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners till completion of the constitutional and statutory term of five years from the date of the last election of petitioner No. 1.

3. The facts of the matter lie in a very short compass. Prior to the impugned notification the urban area of Saharanpur was being governed by an elected body called Municipal Council under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Some time in the month of September 2009, 25.9.2009 to be exact, the State Government by a notification included the area of 32 villages, having achieved urbanization, in the existing area of Municipal Council, Saharanpur. On 1.10.2009 the impugned notification No. 2176/9-7-09-53 J/1998 was issued by the State Government. By this notification Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur was established for the larger urban area of city of Saharanapur. This exercise of power was made basically under Article 243 Q of the Constitution of India which provides for specification of larger urban area. By another notification of the same date issued under Section 8-AA (1) (b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1959 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1959), all powers, functions and duties of Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation) during the transitional period till the constitution of Nagar Nigam were vested in the District Magistrate, Saharanpur as Administrator. By reasons of both the aforesaid notifications the Municipal Council, Saharanpur was rendered non-existent. The petitioners Sri Imran Masood and Sri Man Mohan Jadeja are the erstwhile Chairman and Members of Municipal Council, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1.

4. The impugned notification is challenged by the petitioners firstly, on the ground that extension of urban area of Municipal Council, Saharanpur was not done according to law. It is argued that the extension of area of Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur was hurriedly undertaken without issuing and publishing preliminary notification as provided under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, whereby objections/suggestions are to be invited, therefore, inclusion of the area of 32 villages by notification dated 25.9.2009 issued under Section 3 (2) of the Municipalities Act, 1916 was illegal and arbitrary and as a consequence the subsequent notification dated 1.10.2009 declaring larger Municipality is also illegal and unconstitutional.

5. The next submission of the writ petitioners is based upon the provisions of Article 243U of the Constitution of India. Sub-clause (1) of Article 243 (U) reads as under :

“(1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer :

Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution.”

6. It is contended that under Article 243 U of the Constitution of India, without sooner dissolved, the Municipality is Constitutionally entitled to continue for five years. Since the Municipality is so entitled, its elected Members also have the right to their term of office for five y