STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HANUMANGARH FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the legal question involved in this batch of special appeals it is necessary to give a brief background. The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh (referred to hereinafter as 'the Council' in short) had constructed some shops in a market known as Kamla Nehru Market. The writ petitioners are vegetable vendors who used to sell vegetables on the foot-path in the market. During the period from 1976 to 1978 about 66 shops were constructed in the market. The market was named as Kamla Nehru Market, Hanumangarh Junction. The size of the shops is 10' x 10'. While allotting the shops to the petitioners and others agreements were executed between the Council and the allottees. Copy of agreement is annexed to the petition. As per the agreement, the allotees were liable to pay at the rate of Rs.80.00 per month for the shops allotted to them. In the year 1983, the State Government issued an order dated 10-8-1983 containing guidelines regarding sale and settlement of properties belonging to the State Government or the respective Municipal Councils/Boards. Copy of the order was also annexed to the petition. In pursuance of the Government order dated 10-8-1983 the Council in its meeting held on 29-10-1983 increased the charges for the shops allotted to the writ petitioners by 10 per cent and further directed that there will be a 10 per cent increase every subsequent year. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said order challenged the same by filing writ petitions in this Court which came to be decided by the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25-2-1991. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge held that action of the Council in increasing the charges by 10 per cent and further directing 10 per cent annual increase for every subsequent year was illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were, therefore, allowed. However, the Council was left free to take a decision regarding increase in rent of the shops in accordance with law. These appeals are directed against the said judgment of the learned single Judge.

(2.) When the appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench it was noticed that by a more or less non-speaking order another appeal had been dismissed by another Division Bench. The Bench in the present case found itself unable to persuade itself to agree with the view taken by the other Division Bench and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger Bench. The main question referred for consideration by the larger Bench is whether the notification dated 10-8-1983 as issued by the State Government really confers jurisdiction on the Municipal Councils to increase the rent at the rate of 10 per cent every year and whether such an enhancement is lawful?

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.