PIYUSH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delimitation of wards in the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai (2nd Respondent) forms the centre of dispute. The challenge raised against Annexure-P/1 Final Notification dated 10.07.2020, contending that it is in substantial variation from the Preliminary Notification issued by the District Collector vide Annexure-P/2 and that no opportunity of hearing was given with reference to the objections/suggestions raised by the Petitioners came to be turned down by the learned Single Judge; correctness of which is put to challenge in this appeal. The main grounds raised are that; there is infraction of Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the M.P. / Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1994') insofar as no opportunity of hearing on the objection was ever given before effecting the substantial variations and further, the decision has been made by the District Collector himself on the objections, as revealed from the 'return' filed from the part of the State; which task ought to have been pursued only by the State in view of the mandate under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act, 1956') and the relevant Rules.

(2.) In connection with the elections to be held in the 2nd Respondent local authority, the tenure of which was to expire by December, 2020. Annexure-P/2 Notification dated 20.02.2020 was issued by the 3rd Respondent /District Collector along with the proposal inviting objections/suggestions from the general public. It is the case of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that he had filed specific objections vide Annexure-P/7 dated 24.02.2020 and that similar objections were filed from other stakeholders as well. It was all of sudden, that Annexure-P/1 was notified in the official gazette on 10.07.2020 finalizing the proceedings, whereby substantial variations were affected to the proposal contained in Annexure-P/2. It is contented that some wards already mentioned in Annexure-P/2 proposal simply vanished in the air and some new wards have been brought in as revealed from Annexure- P/1; with regard to which no objection could be raised at any point of time. No opportunity of hearing was also given before such substantial variation was effected while issuing Annexure-P/1 Notification in terms of Section 10 of the Act, 1956 and the Rules, 1994 which have been framed by the State in exercise of power under Section 433 of the very same Act, 1956. This made the Writ Petitioners to challenge the said proceedings by filing the writ petition, seeking to set aside Annexures-P/1 and P/2 along with the impugned Schedule Annexures-P/9, simultaneously seeking to direct the Respondents to determine the extension of wards of the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg afresh, after considering the objections/suggestions and after affording an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) A detailed replied was filed from the part of the State (Respondents No. 1 and 3), contending that the writ petition itself was not maintainable; that there was no illegality in the proceedings issued by the District Collector vide Annexure-P/2; that the proceedings were finalized by the 1st Respondent/State as per Annexure-P/1 with regard to the determination of the number and extent of wards and that it was not an administrative or executive function, but a 'legislative act' performed by the State in terms of section 10 of the Act, 1956. It was contended that the statute does not provide for any opportunity of hearing and that it is not concerned with the interest of any particular individual and rather relates to the public in general. Since, it is a legislative function, the principles of natural justice are not attracted and hence no opportunity of hearing is ever contemplated.