1989 (7) TMI 97 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the action of the Government affording an opportunity of being heard only to the Federation and not to other objectors was contrary to article 14? Held that - The grievance of the appellants counsel is not wholly unjustified. At the beginning of the judgment, we have said that the High Court rendered the judgment in a sense against judicial propriety and decorum. We were not happy to make that observation, but were constrained to say so in the premises and background of the case. It may be noted that the result of the writ petitions before the High Court turns on the nature and scope of the power conferred on the Government under section 3 of the Act. After referring to these simple legal principles, it is unfortunate that the issue at stake was little explored. The key question raised in the case was sidetracked and a new strategy to interfere with the decision of the Government was devised. The learned judges directed the Government to publish again a draft notification for reconsideration of the matter. They gave liberty to the writ petitioners and the interveners to submit their representations. They observed that this is a fit case where the parties should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. They did not quash the impugned notification, but told the Government to make necessary changes in the light of fresh consideration. All these directions were issued after recording a positive finding that the exclusion of Ulhasnagar from the Corporation was arbitrary and irrational. The net result of it is that there is now no discretion with the Government to keep Ulhasnagar away from the Corporation.It would be difficult for us to appreciate the judgment of the High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Government's decision to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed Kalyan Corporation.
2. Application of principles of natural justice in the legislative process under section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
3. Judicial propriety and decorum in the High Court's handling of precedents and procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Government's Decision to Exclude Ulhasnagar:
The Government of Maharashtra issued a draft notification proposing the formation of "Kalyan Corporation" by merging the municipal areas of Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivli, and Ulhasnagar. However, following objections, particularly from the Sindhi community in Ulhasnagar, the Government decided to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed Corporation. The High Court found this decision to be abrupt and irrational, stating it was arbitrary and against the purpose of the Act. The High Court directed the Government to reconsider the proposal, emphasizing that the decision to exclude Ulhasnagar should have been reconsidered in the context of the entire proposal. However, the Supreme Court held that the Government's decision, being a legislative process, was not subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness, provided statutory requirements were met.

2. Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court criticized the Government for hearing only the Sindhi Panchayat Federation and not other objectors, suggesting it was a violation of Article 14 and amounted to hostile discrimination. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the formation of a municipal corporation under section 3 of the Act is a legislative process, and principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative functions. The procedural requirement of hearing is not implied in the exercise of legislative powers unless expressly prescribed by law. The Court referenced previous decisions, including Tulsipur Sugar Co.'s case and Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, to support this view.

3. Judicial Propriety and Decorum:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not following the precedent set by a Division Bench in Village Panchayat Chikalthana v. State of Maharashtra, which had upheld the legislative nature of the power under section 3 of the Act. The High Court neither referred the case to a larger Bench nor adhered to the established precedent, which the Supreme Court deemed a subversion of judicial process. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial decorum and legal propriety demand adherence to precedents and proper procedure, underscoring the importance of consistency and predictability in judicial decisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court, emphasizing that the Government's decision to exclude Ulhasnagar was a legislative act not subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness. The Court reiterated that principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative processes unless expressly required by law. The Supreme Court also highlighted the necessity for judicial propriety and adherence to precedents, criticizing the High Court for deviating from established legal principles without referring the matter to a larger Bench.