The Municipal Committee, Dhariwal vs Gram Sabha, Village Rania and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—In the writ petition, giving rise to this letters patent appeal, the Petitioners challenged the notifications, issued by the Punjab Government under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, (hereinafter called the Act), Annexures P. 1 and P. 2. extending the limits of the Municipal Committee, Dhariwal. The main attack to the said notifications was that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. According to the Petitioners, the notification, Annexure P. 1, was to be published in such other manner as the State Government may determine in addition to its publication in the official gazette. Since the State Government did not determine any other manner for its publication, the notification, Annexure P. 2, was illegal. Before the learned Single Judge, the State Government was unable to produce any order showing the determination of any other manner of the publication of the notification. Not only that, the State Government also failed to produce any general order alleged to have been issued somewhere in the year 1954, In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge concluded,-

In the face of this factual position anything done by the municipal committee, even if it has been actually done-though it is being disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-would not satisfy the requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 5. As already pointed out, the decision about the mode and manner of publication has to be taken by the Government and it is for the Government to see to its compliance. It cannot be left to the municipal authorities to choose the manner in which such publicity has to be made or to satisfy itself that it has actually been so made.

As a result, the notifications, Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 were quashed.This letters patent appeal has been filed by the municipal commnittee.Suprisingly enough, the State did not choose to file any appeal against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge though it were the notification issued by the state Government u/s 6 of the Act which were quashed.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that even if there was any non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, the same was of no consequence in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the failure of the State Government to determine any other manner of publication was of no consequence because it did not affect the merits of the case In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Bangalore W.C. & S. Mills Co. v. Bangalore Corporation A. I. R. 1952 S. C 562.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

The provisions of Section 37 of the Act could not be invoked as regards the publication of the notification u/s 5(1). The declaration of the intention to include any local area withinin a municipality in such other manner as the State Government may determine, in addition to the publication of the notification in the official gazette, is a condition precedent for the issuance of a notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. If it is not done, then, no action can be taken under the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of section 5. The publication of notification u/s 5(1) of the Act in any other manner as the State Government may determine, in addition to its publication in the official gazette is necessary in order to bring to the notice of the persons concerned the State Government''s intention to include any local area within the limits of a municipality and to enable them to file objections, if any, thereto. This could not be left to the discretion of the municipal committee as Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that such other manner of publication is to be determined by the State Government itself. Bangalore W.C. &e S. Mills Co.''s case (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Therein, while dealing with Sections 38(1)(b) and 98(2) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, it was held that where a resolution intending to impose a tax passed by the Municipal Corporation is published in Newspapers and is also communicated to those affected by it, the mere failure to notify the final resolution of the imposition of the tax in the Government Gazette as required by Section 98(2) was not fatal to the legality of the imposition and was cured by Section 38(1)(b). As already observed in the earlier part of this judgment, in the,present case, the declaration of the intention to include any local area within a municipality in such other manner as the State Government may determine, in addition to the publication of the notification in the official gazette u/s 5(1), was a condition precedent for the issuance of a notification u/s 5(3) of the Act.

In Ram Singh v. State of Haryana (1978) 80 P. L. R. 208, while interpreting Section 4(1) and (2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, it has been held by this Court that the requirement regarding other manner of notifying State''s intention was mandatory. It was also observed therein that the law that affects the citizens, requires such publicity as may be consi dered sufficient to inform of its existence to a man in the street, and any provision requiring publication of a fact which affects the citizens, in a given manner to achieve the aforesaid object of giving information to the affected persons, has to be considered mandatory one.

In this view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.