SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA PRAHALAD HIRANAND ADVANI Vs. COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA:COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case involved in these two appeals, with leave, seems indeed straightforward enough, but the High Court of Bombay made it, as we venture to think, unsatisfactory and in a sense against judicial propriety and decorum.

(2.) The facts which are of central importance may be stated as follows :

(3.) The residents of Ambarnath Municipal areas were not satisfied. They were, perhaps, more worried by the exclusion of Ulhasnagar than the inclusion of their own area. They moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notification issued under Sec. 3(2) of the Act. They interalia, contended that the action of the Government affording an opportunity of being heard only to the Federation and not to other objectors was contrary to Article 14. It was a hostile discrimination to hear only one of the objectors. They asserted that the establishment of the Corporation without Ulhasnagar Municipal area, having regard to the geographical contiguity was unintelligible and incomprehensible. It was arbitrary and opposed to the object of the Act. They also contended that there ought to have been a fresh draft notification after taking a decision to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposal. With similar contentions and for the same relief, there was another writ petition before the High Court. It was filed by the National Rayon Corporation Limited which is a company located within the Municipal limits of Ambarnath.