2003 (2) TMI 477 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and constitution of Municipal Corporation.
2. Effect of census figures published being called 'provisional'.
3. Whether the population of Jalgaon was denied an effective opportunity of raising objections and hence the principles of natural justice were violated.
4. Want of consultation with Municipal Council.

Summary:

Q.1. Hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and constitution of Municipal Corporation:

The Court held that a hiatus between the dissolution of a Municipal Council and the constitution of a Municipal Corporation is an unavoidable event in the process of conversion. Article 243U(3) cannot be applied to a case where one type of municipality is replaced by another. The statutory provisions do not contemplate simultaneous existence of a Municipal Council and a Municipal Corporation in the same area. Section 452A of the BMPC Act allows for the appointment of an Administrator for a maximum period of six months, ensuring that the Municipal Corporation is constituted within this period.

Q.2. Effect of census figures published being called 'provisional':

The Court found no merit in the argument that the provisional census figures published on 13.8.2001 could not be acted upon. The correctness of the population figure of 3,68,579 for Jalgaon urban area was not disputed. No act or rule requires waiting for 'Final Population Totals' after the publication of provisional figures. The decision to constitute a Municipal Corporation based on these figures was valid.

Q.3. Whether the population of Jalgaon was denied an effective opportunity of raising objections and hence the principles of natural justice were violated:

The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated. Although the period for raising objections was curtailed from 60 days to 30 days by an ordinance, the statutory requirement of a notice period of 'not less than 30 days' was met. The Municipal Council and 239 individual objections were considered. No new objections were raised that could not have been submitted within the shortened period. The amendment was justified by the need to avoid the expenditure and effort of holding elections for a Municipal Council that would soon be replaced by a Municipal Corporation.

Q.4. Want of consultation with Municipal Council:

The Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that the process was vitiated for lack of consultation with the Municipal Council. Consultation is mandatory before issuing the final notification, but not necessarily before publishing the proposal. The process had not reached the final decision stage when the writ petitions were filed. The requirement of consultation could have been satisfied before finalizing the proposal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the State Government to proceed with the final decision on constituting the Municipal Corporation of Jalgaon. The process of consultation and consideration of objections should be completed as per law. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions were dismissed.