CHETAN PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved being similar in all these matters they were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. Be it noted that in Writ Appeal No.678/2006 the defensibility and tenability of the order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4335/2006 is called in question. It is also worth noting that before the learned Single Judge the assail was to the notification published on 23.12.2005 under sub -section 2 of Section 5 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby a small urban area, Kolar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was notified whereby area of 20 villages as specified in the notification was included which formed the part of eight Gram Panchayats with the intention to constitute a Nagar Panchayat in Kolar. Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal.

(2.) The expose of facts which are imperative to be stated are that the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification on 23.12.2005 under section 5 of the Act. By the said notification, small urban area, namely, Kolar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was notified and an area of 20 villages as specified in the notification was included which formed the part of eight Gram Panchayats, namely, Banjari, Akbarpur, Damkhera, Semri Kalan, Hinotia Allam, Nayapura, Bairagharh, Chichli and Inayatpur. The notification defined the local limits of the said area. After issue of said notification the appellant in W.A. No. 678/2006 assailed the same in W.P. No. 4335/2006 contending, inter alia, that he is the President of Gram Panchayat and Brijesh Gupta is the Upsarpanch who had preferred Writ Petition No. 3493/2006 and their rights are going to be jeopardized inasmuch as by virtue of issuance of notification they would be ousted from their elected office. It was contended in the writ court that before issuance of said notification for constitution of small urban areas the requisite mandate of grant of opportunity of being heard was not complied with; no objection had been invited before issuance of notification; the elected candidates had not completed the tenure of 5 years; that issue of notification runs counter to the intendment of Section 9 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 1993 Act'); that Bhopal Municipal Corporation is on the periphery of various Gram Panchayats and hence, the action taken is against the public interest.

(3.) The stand and stance taken in the writ petition were resisted to by the respondents contending, inter alia, that before issue of notification grant of opportunity of hearing was not necessary; that the Governor has the authority to specify any area as small urban area; that there is no provision in the statute for inviting objections before issue of such notification; that the principles of natural justice have no application to such process; that the action taken is in public interest inasmuch as 65% of general population is engaged in government service or business and only 35% of population is engaged in agriculture; out of 20 villages, 10 villages have residential colonies and have a character and contour of an urban area; and that section 9 of the 1993 Act does not create any impediment or obstacle for exercising the powers under Section 5 of the 1961 Act.