Municipal autonomy limited by statute: executive interference with elected bodies is valid only within strict legal grounds.

The Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to stop payments, restrain implementation of municipal resolutions, or interfere with auction proceedings under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. That provision permits intervention only where a municipal resolution or order is likely to cause public obstruction, annoyance or injury, or danger to human life, health, safety, riot or affray. Because the impugned directions concerned ordinary municipal functions within the elected body's domain and no other enabling provision was shown, the orders were outside the statute and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional District Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 to stop payments, restrain implementation of municipal resolutions, and auction proceedings of the Nagar Palika Parishad.

Analysis: Section 34 permits interference only where a municipal resolution or order is likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to the public, or danger to human life, health, safety, riot, or affray. The impugned directions concerned payment of contractual dues, implementation of municipal resolutions, and auction of shops, all of which fell within the ordinary functions and administrative domain of the elected municipality. Those actions did not satisfy the statutory conditions for invoking Section 34. The constitutional scheme and the Municipalities Act contemplate independent functioning of elected municipal bodies, and executive interference is permissible only within the narrow limits created by law. No other enabling provision was shown to justify the orders.

Conclusion: The Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders, which were outside Section 34 and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the municipal autonomy of the petitioner was protected, while leaving the competent statutory authorities free to proceed in accordance with law if any misconduct or statutory breach is established.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive interference with the functioning of an elected municipality is valid only when strictly authorised by statute and only to the extent permitted by the statutory grounds for intervention.

---