PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956 ). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be 'a village' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the 'biggest and the most progressive' village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amendment) Act, 1956, the State of Bombay is seeking to enforce the provisions of the said Act by issuing a notification in that behalf. The petitioner challenges the competence of the State of Bombay to issue a notification to, bring into operation the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment) ) Act, 58 of 1956, and the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) (Amendment) Act 57 of 1356, and claims a writ of mandamus or a suitable writ or order or direction restraining the State of Bombay from enforcing the provisions of the said Bombay Acts Nos. 57 and 58 of 1956 and also claims an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay from acting under the said statutes and a declaration that the village panchayat of the village of Goregaon is still a valid body whose constitution has not undergone abolition by virtue of Section 2 of Bombay Act 58 Of 1956.

(2.) IT may at once be stated that the competency of the State Legislature of Bombay to legislate on the subject-matter of the two Acts is not challenged. It is however contended that the Legislative Assembly of the Bombay State as at present functioning is illegally constituted, and the two Acts are therefore invalid and that the State Government has derived no authority to issue a notification bringing into operation the two Acts.

(3.) IN order to appreciate this argument it may be necessary to set out certain legislative history. The Parliament of India passed the States Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) on 31-8-1956. By that Act it was intended to provide for the reorganisation of the States and for matters connected therewith. Under that Act, on the appointed day, i. e. , 1-11-1956, several territorial readjustments were made in the areas of the States and certain new States were formed. By Section 8 of the Act, as from the appointed day a new State of Bombay comprising territories described therein came into existence. By Section 12 of the Act. as from the appointed day in the First Schedule to the Constitution, Parts A, B and C were substituted by another Schedule and item 4 of the substitution is "the territories specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956" which form the new State of Bombay. By Section 23, the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended as from the appointed day. By Section 28, changes in the composition and allocation of sitting members in the Legislative Assemblies of the States were made. Sub-section (1) of that section provided: