1981 (9) TMI 305 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds validity of Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation formation and Administrator appointment. Inclusion of suburban areas deemed lawful.

Raghunath Pandey and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Ors.

The court upheld the validity of the notification constituting the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation and the appointment of the Administrator. It found ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification under the Bihar Municipal Corporations Act.2. Inclusion of suburban areas and Gram Panchayats in the Municipal Corporation.3. Allegation of violation of natural justice.4. Constitutionality of Section 2(1) of the Corporation Act.5. Allegations of mala fide motives by the Chief Minister.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notification under the Bihar Municipal Corporations Act:The notification dated 16-4-81, issued by the State of Bihar under Section 2 of the Bihar Municipal Corporations Act, declared the constitution of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. The petitioners challenged this on the grounds that the population of Muzaffarpur Municipality was below the required 2 lakhs. The court noted that the Act allows the State Government to include additional areas to meet the population requirement. The inclusion of suburban areas to make up the population was deemed lawful as these areas had assumed urban character.2. Inclusion of Suburban Areas and Gram Panchayats:The petitioners argued that the inclusion of Gram Panchayats violated the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, which requires seeking the opinion of the people before altering the jurisdiction of a Panchayat. The court held that this provision applies only when areas are transferred between Panchayats, not when they are included in a Municipal Corporation. The court found that the suburban areas included had urban characteristics, satisfying the legal requirements for their inclusion.3. Allegation of Violation of Natural Justice:The petitioners claimed that the creation of the corporation without seeking their opinion violated the rule of natural justice. The court held that the consequences to the petitioners were not significant enough to warrant the application of the rule of natural justice. The court emphasized that the benefits to the general public outweighed the individual losses of the petitioners. The court also noted that the Corporation Act did not require prior consultation, and thus, the principle of audi alteram partem was not applicable.4. Constitutionality of Section 2(1) of the Corporation Act:The petitioners argued that Section 2(1) of the Corporation Act violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court held that there was no deprivation of life or personal liberty under Article 21. Regarding Article 14, the court found that the Act provided sufficient safeguards and was not arbitrary. The court emphasized that the Act was a piece of conditional legislation, not delegated legislation, and thus did not suffer from excessive delegation.5. Allegations of Mala Fide Motives by the Chief Minister:The petitioners alleged that the Chief Minister had mala fide motives in creating the corporation due to political differences. The court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The court noted that the allegations were vague and that the administrative actions taken by the Chief Minister were insufficient to establish mala fides.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ applications, upholding the validity of the notification constituting the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation and the appointment of the Administrator. The court found that the actions taken were in accordance with the law and did not violate any constitutional provisions or principles of natural justice.