INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, we shall decide Civil Writ Petition No.3705 of 2007 and three other connected petitions (CWP No.17436 of 2006 and CWP Nos.2356 & 5795 of 2007). The facts involved in all the four petitions being similar and the issue arising for consideration being common, the facts are being culled out from CWP No.3705 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioners herein have assailed the notification dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P -10), issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Urban Development, vide which, in exercise of power under Section 8 sub -section 1 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for the sake of brevity and convenience be referred to as, '1973 Act'), the Municipal Committee, Sadhaura was abolished. And also for setting aside the notification of an even date (Annexure P -9), issued by the State Election Commissioner, Haryana, in exercise of power under Section 3A of the 1973 Act and Rule 19(7) of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, whereby, the election programme for all the wards of Municipal Committee, Sadhaura, District Yamunanagar, was cancelled and, consequently, the polls. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of mandamus was sought against the respondents to revive the Municipal Committee, Sadhaura and to hold elections as per the mandate of Article 246(U) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the 1973 Act.

(3.) THE petitioners claimed to be the residents of Sadhaura, District Yamunanagar in the State of Haryana. It was stated that petitioner No.1 was elected unopposed as Municipal Commissioner from Ward No.5, and the other petitioners were the contestants for being elected as Municipal Commissioners from different Wards. It is stated that the Municipal Committee, Sadhaura was constituted at the time of British Government on 22.08.1885, under the Municipal Act, 1884. The amenities were being provided by the Municipal Committee and after promulgation of the 1973 Act, the functions of the Municipal Committee and the local area within the Municipal limits were regulated as per the provisions of the said Act. There has never been any complaint with regard to the working of the Municipal Committee. However, for the first time, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.1 (Government of Haryana) on 28.01.2000. What was sought to be conveyed through the said notice was that while constituting the Municipalities under the provisions of Section 2A of the 1973 Act, one of the important considerations was to generate revenue for local administration and provide civic amenities in the area. Further, as a consequence of constitution of the Committee, the employees are posted and salaries etc. are to be paid to the employees of the Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. However, the Municipalities in the State of Haryana failed to generate sufficient revenue, and so much so, a few of the Municipalities were not even able to disburse the salary to its employees and also incapable of depositing the audit fee to the Director and even 1% fee to the Director, Local Body to its loan etc. Therefore, the Government of Haryana had taken a decision to abolish the Municipal Committees in the State. Resultantly, the Government of Haryana, Department of Development and Panchayat in exercise of its powers under by Section 7 sub - section (1) and Section 8 sub -section (1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, issued a notification dated