HIRALAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated February 21, 1966, whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant under see. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN the town of Sardarshahar two roads each 18' wide intersect at particular point which is called a "chopad". One of the residents of the town Shri Shivpratap Tantia, since deceased, approached the Municipal Board to construct a clock tower at the "chopad". The proposed construction included four pillars 20' high and 18"xl8" square on the four corners of the "chopad". The pillars were proposed to be constructed on the north western unpaved foot path measuring 9. 6' wide and on the north-east foot path measuring 8' wide and on the south-west path measuring 9' wide and on the south east foot path measuring 7. 4. ' wide. These pillars were to be later covered by beams and thereon a clock tower of the height of approximately 48' was to be constructed as per design given in Ex. R. 1. The proposal put by Shri Tantia came to be considered by the Administrator and he observed in Ex. 1 dated 249-1963 that the scheme of a clock tower was towards the beatification of the town and such schemes were ordinarily financed by the Municipalities themselves, and the Municipal Board Sardarshahar was fortunate that it came to be financed by a citizen. It was also examined if the construction of the clock tower will in any manner obstruct the passage of traffic and the Administrator found that it would not. The construction was to be done under the supervision of the Municipal Engineer and the financer was to obey the instructions of the Municipal Board as per Ex. 2 dated 11-11-1963. The scheme was accordingly approved but Hiralal petitioner-appellant felt uncomfortable and approached authorities. At one stage he was able io get the scheme paralysad but eventually the scheme was approved by Director, Local Bodies and the Government. Petitioner's dissatisfaction, however, continued and he instituted a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge after closely examining the matter came to observe that the construction of the four pillars on the corners of the foot path as indicated in annexure R. 2 would not in any manner cause obstruction. He further observed that these four pillars would be constructed at the places where electric and telephone poles were already in existence. The slanting wires that were fixed on these telephone poles for their support would be removed as result of the proposed pillars and thereby they would be instrumental in removing the existing obstruction. IN this view of the matter, after examining the provision of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, he came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the writ petition submitted by Hiralal and dismissed the same. Hiralal comes in special appeal.

(3.) THE facts of the Rajasthan case of Pyrelalsantpal (2) are entirely distinguishable. In the Dhan Mandi area of Ganganagar town there is a road leading from the Kotwali to the Lakkar Mandi known as Kotwali Road. At right angles to it towards its western end is the Dharamshala Road. Both these are public roads or highways. Santpal had a Nohra and Laduram had shops abutting on the Kotwali Road and Khem Chand had shops abutting on the Dharamshala Road. THE width of these roads was 50 ft. Some 25 or 30 years before the present suits were brought, the Municipality of Ganganagar let out substantial portions of these public roads to various persons on Tehbazari basis for putting up temporary wooded stalls to be used. It was held that the Municipality acted in excess of its authority. Shrinking the width of a road was no improvement.