Jha, J. -- 1. Learned Single Bench has referred this dispute before the larger Bench on account of difference of interpretation of provisions of section 2(e) of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedkhali) Adhiniyam by the Division Bench judgments. ip the case of Hariom Verma and another v. State of M.P. and others [1992(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 184] and in the case of R.P. Shanna v. Competent.Authority MP No.474/92 decided on 23.6.1997 reported in 1992(2) MPWN 74.

2. Short question involved in these cases is whether the premises belonging to local authority will fall within the meaning of "public premises" as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam") and Adhiniyam is applicable to premises belonging to local autrurity.

3. In the case of Hariom Verma (supra), it is held that Adhiniyam is not applicable to property belonging to Municipality, whereas in another decision in the case of R.P. Sharma (supra), il is held that the definition under section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam encompasses properties of municipal council i.e. local authority, therefore, Adhiniyam is applicable to the properties of the municipal council and m