2010 (10) TMI 1184 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the authority of the Additional District Magistrate to interfere with the functioning of the Nagar Palika Parishad u/s 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, and the legality of the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate restraining the Parishad from certain actions.

Interference by Additional District Magistrate:
The petitioner, Nagar Palika Parishad, challenged the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate directing the stoppage of payments for construction work contracts, preventing the execution of resolutions, and restraining the auctioning of shops. The petitioner argued that the Additional District Magistrate had no legal authority to interfere with the Parishad's functions unless specific circumstances u/s 34 of the Act existed.

Legal Provisions and Arguments:
The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate can only interfere under Section 34 of the Act if the resolutions or orders of the Parishad may cause obstruction, annoyance, injury to the public, or danger to human life, health, safety, or lead to a riot or affray. The Additional District Magistrate's actions were deemed to be beyond the scope of Section 34 as they did not fall under the specified circumstances for interference.

Independence of Nagar Palika Parishad:
The Constitution of India and the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 emphasize the independence of Nagar Palika Parishads in carrying out their duties. Interference by the District Magistrate or State Government is only permissible under Section 34 of the Act when specific circumstances warrant such intervention.

Judgment and Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Additional District Magistrate's orders were outside the purview of Section 34 of the Act and interfered with the functioning of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The orders were quashed, emphasizing that the Parishad should be allowed to perform its duties independently. The State Government retains the authority to take action against the Parishad if it is found to be misusing funds or contravening the law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.