2011 Supreme(UK) 634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Kamal Jora - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondents
With
Dinesh Randhawa and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No. 1533 of 2011 (M/S), WRIT PETITION No. 1548 of 2011 (M/S)
Decided On : 15.12.2011
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate present for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate present for respondent no. 2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a municipal council without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing is a violation of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Municipal Council Dissolution - Constitutional Violation - Article 243 Q, Article 243 U, Section 8-AA of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act - The court found that the dissolution of the municipal councils without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing was a violation of the Constitution of India. The court held that the dissolution was illegal and unconstitutional, and quashed the orders of dissolution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the dissolution of two municipal councils, Haridwar and Haldwani, by the State Government. The councils were dissolved without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dissolution of the municipal councils without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing was a violation of the Constitution of India. The court held that the dissolution was illegal and unconstitutional, and quashed the orders of dissolution.
Issues: The main issues were the violation of Article 243 U of the Constitution of India, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the dissolution of a municipality, and the interpretation of Section 8-AA of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dissolution of the municipal councils without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing was a violation of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the opportunity of hearing must precede the dissolution and cannot be post-decisional.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the orders of dissolution were quashed. The two municipal councils were revived, and the administrators were directed to hand over the charge to the elected representatives of these municipalities.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
2. By means of the first Writ Petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1533 of 2011, the Chairman of the erstwhile “Nagar Palika Parisahd”, Haridwar has challenged the order of the dissolution of the “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haridwar, and in the second writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1548 of 2011, the councilors of the erstwhile “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haldwani have challenged the dissolution of the “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haldwani.
3. The two Nagar Palikas were formally constituted on 6.5.2008 and 5.5.2008 respectively. The term of the two “Nagar Palika Parishad” is for a period of five years. In other words, their term would have expired on 5.5.2013 in the case of “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haridwar and on 4.5.2013 in the case of “Nagar Palika Parishad”, Haldwani. The petitioners have presently challenged before this Court the order dated 21.7.2011, by which the two municipalities have been dissolved and administrators have been appointed, in its place.
4. This is the second round of litigation, between the parties as earlier the petitioners had challenged the order dated 20.5.2011 by which these two municipalities were dissolved by the Government invoking its powers under Article 243 Q and 243 U of the Constitution of India read with Section 8-AA of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. It was done by means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1031 of 2011 in the case of municipal council, Haridwar and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1058 of 2011, in the case of municipal council, Haldwani. The orders of the State Government dated 20.5.2011 by which the two municipalities were dissolved and administrators were appointed, were quashed by this Court, after hearing both the parties in the said writ petitions on 9.6.2011. The State went in Special Appeal where the appeal was dismissed and the above order was upheld. A brief narration of the background which led to the filing of the present writ petitions before this Court would be in order.
5. In Uttarakhand, inter alia, a middle level municipality i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad was existing in Haridwar as well as in Haldwani. These were to be upgraded into a large municipal area i.e. from a municipal council to a municipal corporation.
6. Article 243 Q of the Constitution of India visualizes three kinds or rather three levels of municipalities in an urban area. The first is for a basic urban area which was earlier a rural area and now known as “transitional area”, which has a “Nagar Panchayat”. The next higher level of municipality is for a “smaller urban area” where there is a municipal council, which in the State of Uttarakhand is known as “Nagar Palika Parishad”. The third and the highest level of a municipality is for a “larger urban area” and is called a municipal corporation which is known in the State of Uttarakhand as a “Nagar Nigam”. These three levels of municipalities have been described in Article 243 Q (1) of the Constitution of India, which is as under :
“243Q. Constitution of Municipalities.- (1) There shall be constituted in every State, -
(a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area.
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part: Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and