Allahabad High Court
Manju Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37668 of 2022
Petitioner :- Manju Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Aditya
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and the notification dated 31.12.2019 issued by respondent no.1 in exercise of power under Article 243-Q read with Section 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
By order dated 24.12.2019, the objection filed by the petitioner against the draft notification issued in compliance of Section 4 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 for inclusion of certain more areas of Gram Panchayat Chutmalpur in the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat, Chutmalpur, District Saharanpur had been rejected. The notification dated 31.12.2019 issued under Article 234-Q read with Section 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Act seeks to constitute a new Municipality in the name of Nagar Panchayat, Chutmalpur, District Saharanpur comprising of areas mentioned in the Schedule to the said notification.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objection filed by the petitioner for inclusion of certain more revenue villages of Gram Panchayat Chutmalpur in Nagar Panchayat Chutmalpur has been erroneously rejected on the ground that those areas are part of a different Tehsil and different Assembly seat, although the same cannot be a ground for non-inclusion of those areas in the newly constituted Municipality.
Under Section 4 of the Municipalities Act, a draft notification is issued inviting objections and suggestions from general public. After considering the objections and suggestions, final notification is issued. In the instant case, admittedly the objections received in pursuance of the draft notification have been decided followed by issuance of final notification. The constitution of a new Municipality under Article 243-Q has been held to be a legislative exercise and the scope of judicial review is very limited. Whether a particular area should be included in the new Municipality or not is in the legislative domain. In Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija Vs. Collector and others, (1989) 3 SCC 396, the Supreme Court considered an identical issue and held that court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government to exclude or include a particular area in a municipality, as such a decision is taken by the State Government in exercise of its legislative power. It has been held as follows: -
27. Reverting to the case, we find that the conclusion of the High Court as to the need to reconsider the proposal to form the Corporation has neither the attraction of logic nor the support of law. It must be noted that the function of the Government in establishing a Corporation under the Act is neither executive nor administrative. Counsel for the appellants was right in his submission that it is legislative process indeed. No judicial duty is laid on the Government in discharge of the statutory duties. The only question to be examined is whether the statutory provisions have been complied with. If they are complied with, then, the court could say no more. In the present case the Government did publish the proposal by a draft notification and also considered the representations received. It was only thereafter, a decision was taken to exclude Ulhasnagar for the time being. That decision became final when it was notified under Section 3(2). The court cannot sit in judgment over such decision. It cannot lay down norms for the exercise of that power. It cannot substitute even "its juster will for theirs."
The respondents having examined the objections and have held that the objection cannot be allowed. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review declines to interfere with such a decision.
Moreover, the final notification was issued on 31.12.2019 and as a result whereof, the area which had been included in the new Municipality came to be governed by new set of rules and in accordance with the mechanism provided under the Act. The petitioner had approached this Court for the first time by filing a writ petition in the year 2021 and wherein only preliminary notification and the order rejecting the objection was challenged, although by that time, the final notification had already been issued. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.11.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final notification. Final notification has now been challenged alongwith the order of the State Government rejecting the objection.
We are of considered opinion that the challenge advanced is also highly belated.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
SL
