SHEONATH RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Supreme Court in Ram Bachan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1404 and this Court in R. Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1967 BLJR 491 have concluded that S.388 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act does not confer arbitrary powers upon the State Government and that it does not violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India, yet since in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1987 SC 1239) the Supreme Court has considered the provisions in S.256 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act (19 of 1968) and said :- "The settled position in law is that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply and that before the notified area is constituted in terms of S.256, the people of the locality should be afforded an opportunity of being heard and the administrative decision by the State Government should be taken after considering the views of the residents.'' The petitioners herein have once again questioned the validity of the said provisions. The respondent State has notified and declared that it is necessary to make administrative provisions for the purpose of the Act in the area lying within the villages noted in the notification in the district of Sitamarhi and bounded as described therein. The said notification has been published on 4th August, 1987 (Annexure-1) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec.(1) of S.388 of the Act in the name of the Governor of the State and authenticated by the Joint Secretary to the Government in the department concerned. The petitioners have challenged the said notification alleging that the area notified is comprised of purely agricultural villages; that it forms part of the local Gram Panchayat and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act; that views of the residents of the area have not been ascertained by the State Government and that it has nothing to show that it has acquired the shape of an urban agglomeration. According to the petitioners the notification has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioners have claimed that they are the residents of the villages falling within the area notified and that they have the representative capacity, to speak on behalf of the residents of the area. Besides the petitioners, some other residents of the area have intervened and supported the petitioners. Some other persons however, have appeared to oppose the application.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that there was no attempt made to ascertain the views of the residents of the area concerned, has not been disputed. It has, however, been alleged that the petitioners do not have the representative capacity, that the area concerned has since developed into an urban agglomeration and that it is in the interest of the residents of the area, that they are governed by a Self Government created in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 and accordingly a notification under S.388(1) of the Act has been issued.