GRAM SABHASHAHZADPUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act) issued notification (Annex. P. 4) dated March 25, 1980, proposing the local areas of villages Shahzadpur and Majra in Naraingarh Tahsil of Ambala District, the boundaries of which were detailed therein, to be 'C' class Municipality of Shahzadpur. The State Government thereafter issued another notification (Annex. P. 8) dated August 5, 1980 under sub-section (6) of S. 3 of the Act declaring the local areas of Shahzadpur and Majra detailed in notification (Annexure P 4 to be 'C' Class Municipality of Shahzadpur. Gram Sabhas of Shahzadpur and Majra and a few other residents of these villages have filed the present writ petition challenging these two notifications on various grounds, inter alia, sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution and further they have been issued mala fide to harm Dr. Amar Nath Gupta, Sarpanch (under suspension), Gram Sabha, Shahzadpur petitioner and to benefit Rai Pirthi Singh respondent in the matter of payment of compensation to him of the charand land which is in occupation of Gram Panchayat, Majra. The mala fides are attributed to Shri Lal Singh, Deputy Minster, Labour and Public Health, Haryana, Chandigarh, who has been impleaded as a respondent.

(2.) The State of Haryana has contested the writ petition. It has been denied that the impugned notifications (Annexures P. 4 and P. 8) have been issued male fide or at the instance of Shri Lal Singh respondent. It has also been averred that sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Act is intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and the two impugned notifications (Annexures P. 4 and P. 8) are valid. Shri Lal Singh respondent in his separate return has denied the allegations of mala fides levelled against him.

(3.) The main attack of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it does not lay down guidelines in the matter of discretion to be exercise by the State Government for issuing the notification thereunder with the result that an arbitrary and unbridled power has been conferred upon it in this regard. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has argued that under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the State Government can only propose any local area to be a Municipality by a notification. Under sub-section (5) of S. 3 of the Act the inhabitants have a right to submit objection within six weeks from the date of the notification under sub-section (1). Under sub-section (6) it is incumbent upon the State Government to consider the objections filed and pass order thereon before issuing the notification declaring the proposed local area to be a Municipality. The argument of the learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General proceeds that in view of the detailed procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the Act the power exercisable under sub-section (1) thereof cannot be taken as arbitrary or unbridled or ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General must prevail.