This dismissal upholds a State Government notification expanding Municipal Committee, Naraingarh limits. The court held that publication via official gazette and munadi satisfied Section 4(1) requirements, rejecting the petitioners' claim of voidness due to lack of awareness.
Writ petition dismissed without order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994
Date of decision: 1.4.2011
Harbans Singh and others
........Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
........Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: None for the petitioners
Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.3
RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral)
The challenge in the writ petition is in respect of a notification dated 29.4.1993 issued under Section 4(3) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the areas mentioned in schedule to the notification have been included within the limits of Municipal Committee, Naraingarh in Ambala District.
The precise contention of the writ petitioners as raised in the writ petition is that though the “preliminary” notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 10.12.1992 was issued, yet, the same was not published or circulated through any acceptable means. Consequently the petitioners were unaware of the aforesaid “preliminary” notification and hence were unable to file their objections in the matter. It is, therefore, contended that the “final” notification under Section 4(3) of the Act is ab initio void and is
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994 2
liable to interference by this Court. Section 4 of the Act is in the following
terms:-
“ 4. Notification of intention to alter limits of municipality
(1) The State Government may, by notification, and in such other manner as it may determine, declare its intention to include within a municipality any local area in the vicinity of the same and defined in the notification.
(2) Any inhabitant of a municipality or local area in respect of which a notification has been published under sub-section (1), may, should he object to the alteration proposed, submit his objection in writing through the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government within six weeks from the publication of the notification, and the State Government shall take such objection into consideration.
(3) When six weeks from the publication of the notification have expired, and the State Government has considered the objections, if any, which have been submitted under subsection (2), the State Government may, by notification, include the local area in the municipality.
(4) When any local area has been included in a municipality under sub-section (3), this Act, and except as the State Government may, by notification, direct otherwise, all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers issued, made or conferred under this Act and in force throughout whole of the municipality at the time, shall apply to such area.”
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994 3
Under Section 4(1) the State Government is required to declare its intention to include any local area within a municipality by way of a notification and “in such other manner as it may determine.” Thereafter under Section 4(2) of the Act any inhabitant of the municipality or the local area in respect of which a notification under Section 4(1) has been issued, is permitted to submit his objection in writing. Under sub-section (3) of Section 4 the State Government is empowered to issue a final notification including the local area in the municipality within six weeks from the date of the publication of the notification or upon consideration of the objection filed under Section 4(2).
Having considered the scheme under the Act, we may now turn to the stand taken by the respondent Municipal Committee in its written statement. The publication of the preliminary notification dated 10.12.1992 in the official gazette is evident from the copy of the said notification itself which has been enclosed as Annexure P-1. In paragraph 12 of the written statement it has been stated that in the present case the 'Munadi' was published through beating of drums and the same was pasted in the office of the S.D.M., Tehsildar, B.D.& P.O., Market Committee, Sub Post Office and the Municipal Office. The above stand taken by the respondent Municipal Committee would go to show that both the requirements of publication contemplated by Section 4(1) have been fulfilled in the present case. The preliminary notification was published in the official Gazette and the same was also circulated by pasting the 'Munadi' in the different offices as already mentioned. Thereafter, on expiry of the time period contemplated by sub Section (3), the final notification was issued which was published in the official Gazette on 4.5.1993.
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994 4
The above apart a Division Bench of this Court by its decision dated 6.3.2009 passed in C.W.P. No. 8911 of 2007 (Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) and other connected cases has taken the view that extension of a municipal area under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act is essentially an exercise which is legislative in nature and, therefore, open to challenge on very limited grounds. The Division Bench in passing the said order had followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Tehal Singh and others AIR 2002 SC 533. In another proceeding decided on 9.9.2010 (C.W.P.No. 5424 of 2010 Gram Panchayat Bhadson Vs. State of Punjab and Others) this Court has reiterated the law in a similar manner by an elaborate judgment which we have also read and considered.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to take the view that this writ petition has no merit and substance. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.
Before parting with the record we would like to add that this writ petition was considered appropriate to be disposed of by a reasoned order notwithstanding the nonappearance of the arguing counsel of the petitioner as we are told that the learned counsel who had appeared for the petitioner is no longer in active practice.
(RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE
April 1, 2011 RSK
NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____
C.W.P.No. 6188 of 1994 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the final notification under Section 4(3) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 is valid given the publication of the preliminary notification via the official gazette and munadi.
Whether the Municipal Committee fulfilled the statutory requirements of publication under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Municipal Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab Vs. Tehal Singh and othersFollowed¶29
AIR 2002 SC 533 · Who else cites this
Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶29
C.W.P. No. 8911 of 2007 (Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others)
Gram Panchayat Bhadson Vs. State of Punjab and OthersReferred¶29
C.W.P.No. 5424 of 2010 Gram Panchayat Bhadson Vs. State of Punjab and Others
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Harbans Singh and others
The State of Haryana
Municipal Committee, Naraingarh
RANJAN GOGOI
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
