BHAGUBHAI H. DEVANI Vs. PORBANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, two questions are involved :

(2.) IT is an undisputed position that the petitioner is an elected councillor of the Municipality. He represents a section of the people who have reposed confidence in him believing that he will safeguard their interests as far as the affairs of the Municipality is concerned. It is his duty to see that the Municipality acts in the best interest of the people. It is also his duty to see that the Municipality acts in accordance with law. Apart from the fact that whether he has been actuated by the high motives of public interest litigation or not, the fact remains that by virtue of his office as Councillor, he is required to perform his duties as stated above. He will be answerable to the people if he fails in the discharge of his duties. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner who was an elected representatives of the people and who was a sitting councillor at the time of filing of this petition, is a busybody and that he is an intermeddler and a foreigner so far as the affairs of the Municipality are concerned. As per the provisions of the Act itself, the municipal government vests in the Municipality (see Section 44 (1) of the Act). A Municipality means the entire general body, meaning thereby all the councillors of the Municipality, who constitute the general body of the Municipality. Thus the petitioner is a part of the Municipality. As per the statute itself, the municipal government vests in the Municipality. Therefore he is also a part of the governing body. When he feels that the Municipality is not acting in the best interest of the society and in accordance with the provisions of law, certainly he will be a person who can be said to be as aggrieved person though he may not have direct or indirect interest in the subject matter which is to be decided by the Municipality or which is a matter of dispute. In this view of the matter, the contention that the petitioner is a busybody and at his instance, the question regarding disposal of the property in favour of respondent No.2 -Society cannot be decided has got to be rejected.

(3.) THE paramount consideration should be, what are the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner? Will it not have repercussions on the public interest? Will it not serve the interest of a sizeable section of the society? Will it not be in the interest of society to see that the property belonging to the public at large is disposed of so as to subserve the common good and best interests of the society and therefore be dealt with in accordance with some known principles of law and without arbitrariness? In the instant case, strictly speaking, the petition cannot be termed as a public interest litigation. But it partakes the character of a public interest litigation. The question to be resolved will have effect on the entire society, meaning thereby, it is going to affect the entire population of the town. All the sections of the society will be affected by the distribution of land in a society where the problem of providing housing accommodation to the people is acute. Hence the manner and method of distribution of land by public institution is surely a question which pertains to all the members of the society including the poor, ignorant, as well as socially and economically backward people. As stated hereinabove, motive of the petitioner, though relevant cannot be said to be a determining factor as regards the maintainability of the petition is concerned. Many good things which are in the public interest or in the interest of nation are being done by people with a view to persecute their opponent. For example, the information with regard to hoarding of essential commodities by a black -marketeer. If information is given by a trade rival with a view to see that his competitor is prosecuted, simply because it emanates from a trade rival, it cannot be rejected. Take the example of some officer who might have taken some illegal action. His rival in the same office discloses the same to superior officers. Should the superior officer not take action simply because the information emanates from a rival who is bent upon taking revenge against the officer concerned? Be it noted that the respondent -Municipality is a public body. It is charged with a duty to act as trustee in respect of its property. It is further "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent -Municipality cannot take shelter under the plea that, because the motive of the petitioner is actuated by political considerations, the petition filed by him should not be entertained. In such cases what matters is the merit of the plea, not the motive behind it. Hence this contention has also got to be rejected.