SWASTIK OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notification, dated 8th December, 1960, issued by respondent No. 1, the State Government, under Section 4 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under: The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of oil mills at Rajpipla. The petitioner's factory, known as Swastik Oil Mills, is situated on lands bearing S. No. 809. The said factory was formerly run by M/s. Dhane-shwar Oil Mills, a partnership firm, from whom in or about March 1960. Shri Ishvarlal Lallu-bhai and Shri Chajurbhai Lallubhai had purchased the same. The petitioner had in turn purchased the said factory on or about October 25, I960, from the said Ishvarlal Lallu-bhai and Chaturbhai Lallubhai and after that date the petitioner had started this factory on the said survey number. On December 4, 1958, a notification under Section 8 of the Act was issued inviting objections to the proposal of extension of the municipal limits so as to cover several lands, including the lands, on which tho petitioner's oil mills and certain other factories wore situated. Thereafter the final notification under Section 4 dated April 8, 1960, was issued extending the municipal limits so as to include the land in question within the municipal limits of the Rajpipla municipality who \s respondent No. 2. This notification was challenged by one Narbada Valley Chemical Industries Private Limited which owned the Catachu factory by Special Civil Application No. 274/1960 which was filed on May 30,1960. By a decision of this Court the notification under Section 4 was quashed on the ground that the objections which were received by the Collector were not forwarded to respondent No. 1 and so the objections which were submitted within the requisite time limit of two months were not considered as required by Section 8(3) before issuing the notification and the said notification was therefore set aside by the order dated August 2, 1960. It seems, meanwhile on June 26, 1960, the Collector had forwarded the objections to respondent No. 1. Thereafter without inviting fresh objections the final notification under Section 4, dated December 8, 1960, published on December 29, 1960, was again issued extending the municipal limits so as to include the petitioner's lands in question along with the other lands. It is this notification which is challenged by the petitioner The said notification runs as under: "Whereas the Government of Bombay by its Notification, Local Self Government and Public Health Department No. DTMA. 1258 dated the 4th December, 1958, issued under Section 8 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (Bom. III of 1901) caused to be published a proclamation announcing that if it is proposed to alter the limits of the local area comprised in the Municipal District of the Municipality of Rajpipla, as mentioned in the said Notification. And whereas the objections received by the Collector to the said proposal or in the opinion of the Government of Gujarat, invalid. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act and in supersession of Government of Bombay Notification, Local Self Government and Public Health Department No. DTMA. 1258-A dated the 8th April, 1960, the Government of Gujarat hereby alters the limits of the Municipal District of the Municipality of Rajpipla so as to include therein, with effect from the date of the publication of this notification in the official Gazette the area specified in Schedule 'A' and bounded by the boundaries specified in Schedule 'B' appended hereto". In the said Schedule the land of the petitioner is included. The petitioner's case is that the said notification has been issued in breach of the mandatory requirements of Section 8 without inviting fresh objections. The Collector not having forwarded the objections with all reasonable despatch, the said objections which were belatedly forwarded by the Collector could not have been considered and as all the steps necessary for issuing the said notification were not followed by the Government, the notification was illegal and ultra vires. The notification was also challenged on the ground that it was illegal inasmuch as it proceeded on the basis that the objections were invalid even though they were submitted within the requisite period of two months. Finally, the petitioners also challenged the notification on the ground that the same having been issued in a grossly unreasonable manner without giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner and others to submit their fresh objections, it was a fraud on the statute. On behalf of respondent No. 1, the Under Secretary to the Government has filed the reply. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that it was not necessary to invite objections once again. It is further stated by him that the Collector had forwarded the objections to respondent No. 1 with his letter dated June 26 1960, when he found out that through oversight the said objections remained to be forwarded to respondent No. 1 by him. Both the respondents have supported the said notification.

(3.) At the hearing Mr. Nanavati for the petitioners challenged the said notification on three grounds: