The special resolution to frame Bye-Laws required prior notice and specific agenda item. Insufficient publication of the draft Bye-Laws and unauthorized consideration of objections rendered the Bye-Laws illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

We have heard learned counsels for the parties, and proceed to dispose of this writ petition.

2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the Bye-Laws known as “Registration and Control of the Contractors Bye-Laws 2020-21” (for short “Bye-Laws”), dated 06.03.2021, framed by respondent no.4-Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in exercise of powers under Section 298 (2) of the Uttarakhand Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short ‘the Act’), as well as the consequential Resolution No.175, dated 23.09.2021, and the subsequent advertisement dated 08.12.2021 founded upon the impugned Bye-Laws. Other consequential reliefs have also been sought by the petitioners.

3. The challenge to the Bye-Laws is premised on the breach of Section 298 of the aforesaid Act. The said Section, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:-

“298. Power of [Municipality] to make bye-laws.-(1) A Municipality by a special resolution may, and where required by the State Government shall, make, bye-laws applicable to the whole or any part of the [municipal area], consistent with this Act and with any rule, for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the [municipal area] and for the furtherance of municipal administration under this Act”. (emphasis supplied)

4. Section 88 of the Act defines ‘Quorum’ in relation to special resolution. It is provided that it shall be necessary for the transaction of business which is required to be transacted by special resolution, that not less than one-half of such members shall be present.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the Chairperson of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur issued an agenda for holding a meeting on 19.10.2020. The agenda item reads as follows:-

^^1- x`gdj o"kZ es ls dj fyfid dh vk[;k ,oa izk[k vkifŸk;ksa dh fuLrkj.k gsrq vf/kdkjh ukfer djus ds lac/k esa

2- vU; fo"k; v/;{k egksn; dh vuqefr ls^^

Thus, for the said meeting, there was no specific agenda item qua framing of the impugned Bye-Laws.

6. Learned counsel submits that the proposal to frame Bye-Laws, or to consider any draft Bye-Laws was not placed in the agenda, and the members of the Nagar Palika Parishad had not prior notice of the same. The further submission of the petitioners is that, when the meeting was held on 19.10.2020, out of the blue, the resolution with regard to the framing of the impugned Bye-Laws was passed, as below:-

7. It is, therefore, argued that the members-who were present, purportedly considered and discussed the draft Bye-Laws; accepted the draft Bye-Laws, and; resolved that the same be published in the newspapers to invite objections. It is further argued that for the purpose of passing a special resolution to frame Bye-Laws, the same should have been placed in the agenda, to put all the members of the Nagar Palika Parishad to prior notice. However, that was not done, thereby denying the opportunity to all the members to come prepared with their inputs/ stand on the proposed Bye-Laws.

8. It is further s