NEELAM DEVI WIFE OF SRI ARJUN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ petition, is the Mukhiya of Phulwaria Gram Panchayat in the district of Begusarai. She challenges the Governmental action and the Governmental notification constituting Barauni Nagar Parishad under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 . State Government has constituted the new Municipal Council named as Barauni Municipal Council by taking some parts of some village Panchayats including petitioner's and clubbing them together so that the total population of those parts of Gram Panchayats put together is 58,628. Thus, being more than 40 thousand, it has constituted the Municipal Council. State has filed counter affidavit, application for vacating stay and supplementary counter affidavit. Interveners have appeared and sought to oppose the writ petition. They have filed counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit. Rejoinder has been filed. The pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition was finally heard for disposal at this stage itself especially because, consequent to the constitution of the Barauni Nagar Parishad, State had proceeded to notify elections for the newly constituted Nagar Parishad which, by interim order of this Court, had been stayed. Thus, a case of urgent hearing.

(2.) The principal challenge to the actions and the notification may be noted as under:

(3.) Thus seen, principally the challenge was based on population figure which is the basis for the exercise of power under both the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and the Bihar Municipal Act. State and the interveners were thus required to bring on record figures and statistics to justify such action. It may be noted that as per the statutory provisions, which would be indicated hereinafter, it is not mere subjective opinion of the State that matters because that opinion has to be dependent on objective facts and figures as statutorily provided. Thus, these facts and figures had to be brought on record by the interveners and the respondent-State to justify the recommendation as made by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Begusarai to the State and the considerations of those facts and figures of the State justify their action in notifying the formation of the new Municipal Council. Regrettably, in spite of the fact that the writ petition was filed on 19.8.2009 and adjourned on 20.8.2009 for filing counter affidavit and further adjourned with due notice of the issue involved on 13.1.2010, no such figures were brought on record by the State even though there were specific averments by the petitioner to the contrary. It may be noted that on 16.4.2010, this case was taken up and parties sought time to produce from the records of the State and the Collector the figures which was the foundation for this declaration. Nothing has been produced even today either by the respondents or by the interveners except a report of the Collector initially sent to the State making bald assertions without figures and without disclosing the basis of those figures. It is in this perspective, the Court is to decide about validity of the State action.