BIDHAN NAGAR SALT LAKE WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been moved by the Bidhan Nagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association, a registered body and also by some other members of the said registered association challenging inter alia, the Government of West Bengal. Department of Municipal Affairs Notification No. 490/C -4/MIM -29/94 and No. 491/C -4/MIM -9/92 both dated 30th September, 1994 and also the government Notification No. 55/ C -4/MIM -9/92 and No. 56/C -4/MIM -29/94 both dated 7th February. 1995 by which, the Governor of West Bengal was pleased to exclude the local areas mentioned therein from the Rajarhat -Gopalpur Municipality in the District of North 24 -Parganas and to include the said local areas within the notified area of the Bidhan Nagar Notified Area Authority respectively. The contentions of Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners inter alia, are that the said notifications are violative of Ss. 3. 9 and 378 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 as amended by the West Bengal Municipal (Amendment) Act. 1994 since the Governor did not form his opinion in the matter following the statutory norms as laid down in Ss. 3. 9 and 378(1) of the said Act. Mr. Ghosh also contends that formation such opinion is no doubt legislative process, but existing of circumstances suggesting with inference must be made out. In other words, according to Mr. Ghosh, the subjective satisfaction of the Governor in forming such opinion must be based upon certain objective standards, which are totally lacking in the present case. Mr. Ghosh in support of his said contention relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in : AIR 1967 S.C. 295 and also upon a Patna High Court decision in, AIR 1969 Pat 88. Mr. Ghosh further contends that as the notifications as contained in Annexures "A" and "B" to the writ application were not published as per the time schedule prescribed under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 depriving thereby the residents of Salt Lake Notified Area, sufficient opportunity to make their representations in the matter.

(2.) Mr. Ukil. learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the contention of Mr. Ghosh submitting inter alia, that the mouzas mentioned in the impugned notifications already formed part of Salt Lake Police Station, and in view of Sec. 379 of the aforesaid Act, Sec. 3 thereof does not apply to a notified area and he refers to Sec. 378 and Sec. 9 and also the definition of 'Municipality' as contained in Clause (38A) read with clause (35) of Sec. 2 of the aforesaid act and also Sec. 5 of the said act and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ukil also contends that in view of Sec. 5 read with Sec. 378(2) of the aforesaid Act the petitioners have no locus standi to move the present writ application and referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in : AIR 1980 SC 882; AIR 1980 SC 261 and AIR 1984 SC 583 for the purpose that inclusion or exclusion of any area into or from any notified area or municipality, is only a legislative process, and the question of natural justice or the principle of audi alteram partem does not apply to such process and the statutory provisions of law were followed in the present case regarding publication of the impugned notifications, once such notifications are published after completing the statutory formalities the decisions of the Governor in the matter become final and beyond any judicial review.

(3.) Lastly, Mr. Ukil, however, submits inter alia, on instruction, that if necessary, the State respondents concerned are ready and willing to hear the objections to be filed by the Salt Lake people, if they so desire and if such objections are filed within the time as may be specified by the court, before taking any final steps in the matter by the State respondents concerned.