VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the Collector, Morena, M.P. could in exercise of powers under Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 set aside the resolution passed by the Municipality, Juara, District Morena on 18.05.2010 (Annexure P/2 at page 12 of the paper book), whereby a decision was taken not to give town hall for marriage purpose on contract to a private contractor and to regulate the holding of the functions in the town hall by the Municipality itself.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned decision of the Collector has been made by the Petitioner, who happens to be a resident of the area under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council, Juara, District Morena. His grievance is that the impugned order of the Collector, Morena is without jurisdiction. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that if the impugned order is allowed to stand then it would work to the detriment of the public at large inasmuch as the private contractor can exploit the intended users of the venue of function in the town hall at exorbitant rates at his own fancies and thereby the residents of that area may be forced to book the town hall at rates to be dictated by the contractor. In substance, the submission of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Collector, Morena had no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution of the Municipality passed on 18.05.2010 whereby decision was taken to regulate the holding of functions in the town hall by the Municipality itself instead of giving it on contract to the private contractors. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the statutory provisions contained in Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 in support of his contentions in this regard.

(3.) Mr. Deepak Chandna, learned Counsel for the private Respondent No. 4 contends that in view of his above two objections raised against maintainability of the present writ petition, the present writ petition should be dismissed with costs.