G D MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, G. D. Mehta has challenged the validity of the notification dated 12th May 1979, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, where by the revenue village Rawat Bhata in District Chittorgarh has been declared a notified area and a notified area committee has been constituted for the said notified area.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are, as under. The petitioner is employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Rajasthan of the Atomic Power Project at Rawatbhata in District Chittorgarh. Section 313 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') empowers the State Government to declare a specified area or any part thereof to be a notified area. Section 314 empowers the State Government to constitute a notified area. committee for the notified area Section 315 empowers the Sate Government or the notified area committee with the sanction of the State Government, to impose in any such notified area any tax which could have been imposed therein if such area were a Municipality. The said Section further empowers the State Government to apply or adopt to a notified area any of the provisions of the Act or of any other enactment for the time being in force which may be applied to a Municipality. Section 316 empowers the State Government to cancel or modify any notification under Section 313 or any order made under Section 215. In exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 313 of the Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 28th February, 1975 whereby it signified its intention to declare revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area In response to the said notification objection were preferred against the declaration of revenue village Rawatbhata as notified area and after considering the said objections, the State Government issued a notification dated 22nd July 1975 whereby it declared revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area, and constituted a notified area committee consisting of 12 nominated members, for the said notified area. Subsequently, by notification dated 23rd November 1976 issued in exercise of the powers .conferred on is under Section 316 of the Act, the State Government cancelled the notification whereby the revenue village Rawatbhata was declared as a notified area, and a No(sic)tied -Area Committee constituted for the said notified area. The State Government issued another notification dated 29th December, 1977 (published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated January 5, 1978 in exercise or the powers conferred on it under Section 313 of the Act, whereby it again signified its intention to declare revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area and in the said notification it was stated that any inhabitant of revenue village Rawatbhata, is he desires to object to the above intended declaration, may submit his objections in writing within six weeks from the date of publication of the said notification in the official Gazette. In response to the said notification objections were submitted by various individuls and organisations including RPS. Power Station Workers Union, Rawatbhata Traders Board, Rawatbhata, President of the Shramik Sangh, Rajasthan State karamchari Sangh, Rajasthah State Electricity Board Employees Union. The petitioner as General Secretary of the Rajasthan Anushakti Karamchari Sangarash Samti, Rawatbhata, also submitted his objections dated 30.h January, 1978 against tue declaration of revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area. By notification dated 12th May, 1979 (published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 30, 1979) the State Government declared revenue village Rawat Bhata as a notified are a, and constituted a notified area committee and declared that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and member of the Notified Area Committee would be nominated by the State Government .for a term of three years. In the raid notification it was further declared that the Notified Area Committee would consist of 14 members out of whom two members were to be persons belonging to a scheduled caste and a scheduled tribe mho reside in the same area. By the notification aforesaid the Seats Government nominated the Assistant Collector and Magistrate as the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee and also nominated 12 members of the Notified Area Committee Rawatbhata. By the Notification aforesaid, the State Government has applied all the provisions of the Act to the Notified Area Committee, Rawatbhata. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 12th May, 1979, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the submlssions urged by Shri Mridul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Addl. Government Advocate with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. The submission of the learned Addl. Government Advocate is that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition in as much as there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is resident of revenue village Rawatbhata. to my opinion there is no merit in this preliminary objection. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is a resident of Rawatbhata, and is working in the office of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition an affidavit has been filed by Shri G M, Gupta, a close friend of the petitioner, wherein it has been staled that the petitioner has been allotted Quarter No. NT.G. 74 in Rana Par(sic)tip Sagar Colony and, is residing there for the past 8 years. It is also not disputed that in response to the notification crated 29th December, 1977 the petitioner had submitted objections against the declaration of revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved b(sic) the impugned notification and that be has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition The preliminary objection raised by the learned Addl. Government Advocate I(sic), therefore, rejected.