K PRAMILA PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the Chairperson of Nabarangpur Municipality and an elected Councillor of the said Municipality challenging the action of the State Government in dissolving the Nabarangpur Municipality in exercise of power under Section 401(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act and consequently appointing the Collector and District Magistrate as the Administrator of the Municipality. The notification relating to dissolution has not been filed by the petitioners. However, opposite parties in their counter have filed a copy of the notification as Annexure-D/3.

(2.) The petitioners have contended that the order regarding dissolution is actuated by mala fides and has been passed without properly considering the nature of allegations and the reply submitted by the petitioners and other Councillors. Subsequently, further affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating that the impugned order has been passed by the State Government without giving opportunity of hearing to the Municipality as required under Article 243U of the Constitution of India. Since such an additional affidavit had been filed on behalf of the petitioners, opportunity was given to the opposite parties to file further affidavit. In the further affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been indicated that opportunity to show cause has been given, as contemplated under Section 401(2) of the Orissa Municipal Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court such as, AIR 1960 SC 415, M/s. Fedco (P) Ltd. v. S. N. Bilgrami, AIR 1981 SC 818, Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc., (1991) 2 Orissa LR 32, Sri Rama Chandra Khera v. State of Orissa, and contended that Municipality being an elected body, the extreme action of dissolution of such Municipality, a democratically elected body, should not have been taken merely for the asking and some reasonable constraints should have been shown before taking such drastic action. It has been also vehemently contended that since the Chairperson and the majority of Councillors belong to the rival political party, illegal action has been taken at the behest of the ruling party.