SATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, in this application, challenges a notification, dated June 23, 1995, issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar whereby and where under the Aurangabad municipality was dissolved in purported exercise of power under Section 22 of the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994, on the ground that the Commissioners had completed their five years' term in office. A true copy of the impugned notification is at Annexure-1. It is not in dispute that no notice was given to the municipality before issuing the notification of its dissolution.

(2.) It may be noted at the outset that the provision of law referred in the notification and the ground assigned for dissolving the municipality do not harmonies. Section 22 of the Amendment Act, amended Section 385 of the Bihar, and Orissa Municipal Act which empowered the State Government to dissolve a municipality if in its opinion the municipality exceeded or abused its powers or was not competent to perform its duties etc. A municipality could be dissolved for the reasons stated in Section 385 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act as amended by Section 22 of the Amendment Act even before the Municipal Commissioners had completed their five years' term. On the other hand, a municipality could be dissolved on the completion of the term of Municipal Commissioners in terms of Section 29 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act as amended by Section 14 of the Amendment Act. A dissolution under Section 385 of the Act, however, would require a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the municipality before it was dissolved.

(3.) Coming to the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that the municipality was constituted on 28.05.89. It, thus, completed its term of five years on 27.05.94. On that date, by virtue of the unamended provision of Section 29 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, the Commissioners were to hold office for a further period of six months from the date of the expiry of their terms. The relevant provision was the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act which prior to the amendment of Section 29 was as follows: