STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 23rd of April, 1975 by which C.W.P. No. 2328 of 1966 filed by Dewan Chand and others, respondents, was allowed and the notification issued under S. 10 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads as under, was quashed:-

(2.) Mr. M. P. Singh Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, challenged the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge and submitted that S. 10 of the act provided sufficient guidelines as to in which cases the area from the municipal committee could be withdrawn from the operation of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel, S. 10 of the Act reads as under:-

(3.) Further if the State Government intends to alter the limits of any municipality, then again a detailed procedure is prescribed under S. 5 of the Act. In S. 7, procedure is given with regard to cases covered by S. 6 which relates to the exclusion of local area from any municipality. It would thus be clear from the perusal of these sections, that a mandatory formality of inviting objections from the inhabitants of the local area, is required to be complied with and that before taking any action, the Government is duty bound to consider those objections, Surprisingly, under S. 10 which gives power to withdraw municipal area altogether from the operation of the Act, a blanket power is given to the State Government and the raise of an inhabitant of that area to raise an objection has been denied. As observed by the learned Single Judge, it has been left completely to the whim of the State Government to withdraw any municipal area from the operation of the Act. No guideline at all has been prescribed or indicated as to in which cases, and under what circumstances the State Government could resort to the provisions of S. 10, which are so drastic in nature that by exercising power under that Section, a fully grown committee can be abolished. In this view of the matter, we agree with the learned Single Judge that as no guideline is provided under S. 10 of the Act, the same is ultra vires of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution.