https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275869 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. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 15:52:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275869 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275869