Patna High Court - Orders
Dinesh Kumar Himanshu & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 April, 2014
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12342 of 2013
======================================================
1. Dinesh Kumar Himanshu, son of Sri Heman Rai, Resident of village
Sadapur Mahua, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
2. Nagendra Kumar , son of Late Maharaj Rai, Resident of village Mahua
Mukundpur, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. Upendra Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Dwarika Prasad Yadav, Resident of
village Mahua Mukundpur, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District vaishali at
Hajipur.
4. Anandi Rai, son of Late Nandan Rai, Resident of village Mahua
Mukundpur, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. Sanjay Patel, son of Late Bindeshwari Patel, Resident of village Mahua
Mukundpur, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali at Hajipur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar Patna
3. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, District-Vaishali at Hajipur
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The Block Development Officer, Mahua District Vaishali at Hajipur.]
7. The Circle Officer, Mahua, Vaishali at Hajipur.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR
MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
5 18-04-2014A group of persons claiming themselves to be the inhabitants of areas/places falling within Post Office and P.S. Mahua in the District of Vaishali at Hajipur have joined hands in filing the present writ petition. It was initially filed as a class action questioning the sustainability of the notification issued by the State Government in the department of Urban Development and Housing ( as contained in Annexure-10) whereby the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 2/21 respondent State notified and constituted Mahua Nagar Panchayat ( for short „the Nagar Panchayat‟) in exercise of its power conferred under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 ( for short „the Municipal Act‟). The petitioners sought leave of the Court to convert the writ petition filed as P.I.L into a writ petition by amending the subject matter and on grant of leave the subject matter was amended and it was placed before this Court for consideration .
Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay, GA-12 for the State.
Parties have exchanged their pleadings.
Few relevant facts need to be first indicated . Before the impugned notification Mahua was a Gram Panchayat governed by Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006 ( for short „the Act of 2006‟). Similarly another part(s) of the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat constituted another Gram Panchayat. Section 3 of the Municipal Act provides for three classes of Municipality depending on urban population. The first is larger urban area having population in excess of two lacs ( see Sections 7 and 13 of the Municipal Act). Thereafter comes medium urban area having population between 40,000 to less than 2,00,000. At the lowest in the ladder is the transitional area i.e. small town of population between 12,000 to Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 3/21 40,000 called the Nagar Panchayat. It is, thus, a progression from small urban area to larger urban area to be locally governed by Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation respectively. The State Government issued an order dated 15.11.2011 under Section 3 of the Municipal Act declaring its intention to specify the area as semi urban area or transitional area to be constituted as Mahua Nagar Panchayat and directed the District Magistrate ( respondent no.4) to submit appropriate proposal in accordance with Section 3 of the Municipal Act. The District Magistrate directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahua to carry out a survey in the prescribed format enabling him to furnish the relevant details to the Government for the said purpose. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahua got a sample survey conducted through the Block Development Officer, Mahua and the Circle Officer, Mahua and the report was submitted to the respondent District Magistrate on 14.7.2012 (Annexure-4). The report indicated that total population of the proposed Nagar Panchayat as per 2011 census was 25993. A sample survey was conducted of 3621 families spreading over the proposed area of Nagar Panchayat and nearly 79.69% of the population were found engaged in the profession other than agriculture. The report further detailed presence/existence of different establishments both Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 4/21 government and commercial and public amenities available in or within the area of the proposed Nagar Panchayat evidencing its upward transition. The State Government being satisfied from the details furnished in the said report came out with the declaration dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure-5) to constitute the transitional area detailed therein into a municipal area to be known as Nagar Panchayat, Mahua and invited objections/suggestions from the public at large through the concerned District Magistrate-cum- Divisional Commissioner within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification. Several public petitions were filed objecting to constitution of Nagar Panchayat principally on the ground that the survey report providing the details essential for such constitution of Nagar Panchayat was not only vague /unrealistic but wholly unworthy of reliance. The satisfaction of the Government to declare its intention to constitute the Nagar Panchayat based on such report was, therefore, not sustainable in law . Petitioner no.1 is one of the signatories of such objection(s) /representation(s) (Annexure-6). Similarly such objections/representation ( not by the petitioners) were also filed before the State Government. The State Government thereafter came out with a notification dated 10.4.2013 (Annexure-10) issued under Section 6 of the Municipal Act constituting the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 5/21 Mahua Nagar Panchayat. Since the said notification is under challenge on the grounds to be discussed later in this order, this Court considers it profitable to extract relevant part thereof hereinbelow:-
"fcgkj ljdkj uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx vf/klwpuk la[;k&4 ¼u½ iz0 lHkk& 5@2011 951 @ fcgkj uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 2007 ¼fcgkj vf/kfu;e] 11] 2007½ dh /kkjk&4 ds v/khu iwoZ izdkf"kr izk:Ik vf/klwpuk la[;k&4207 fnukad -30-11-2012 }kjk ?kksf'kr ladze.k"khy {ks= ds fy, /kkjk&5 ds v/khu izkIr vkifRr;ksa ij lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&6 ds }kjk iznRr "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj oS"kkyh ftykUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vuqlwph ^^d** esa ;Fkkof.kZr pkSgn~nh ds vUrxZr uxj iapk;r xfBr djrh gS rFkk blesa iM+us okys ladze.k"khy {ks= esa fcgkj uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 2007 ds lqlaxr izko/kkuksa dks ykxw djrh gS"
I.A. No. 1463 of 2014 was filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of State Election Commission ( for short „the Commission‟) as party respondents and further calling in question the notification issued by the Commission dated 8.1.2014 notifying schedule of election to elect members of the Nagar Panchayat. Be it noted that during the pendency of the writ application election, as per schedule fixed by the Commission, has already been held on 23.3.2014.
Considering the fulcrum of dispute it is considered necessary to notice relevant provisions of the Municipal Act. Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 6/21
Chapter II of part II of the Municipal Act deals with the Constitution of Municipal Areas and Classification of Municipalities. Section 3(1) and (2) thereof read as under:-
"3(1) The State Government may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, and having regard to the population of any urban area, density of population there in, the revenue generated for the local administration of such area, the percentage of employment in non- agriculture activities in such area, the economic importance of such area, and such other factors as may be prescribed, by notification, declare its intention to specify such area to be a larger urban area, or a medium urban area, or a transitional area:
Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless the population
(a) in the case of a larger urban area, is two lacs or more.
(b)in the case of medium urban area, is forty thousand or more but is less than two lacs, and ( c ) in the case of a transitional area, that is a small town, is twelve thousand and more but not more than forty thousand:
Provided further that the non- agricultural population in all cases shall be seventy five per cent or more.
Explanation.-"revenue generated for the local administration" shall not include-
(a) taxes, if any, distributed to the Municipality by the State Government,
(b) loans and grants from the State Government, and (c )loans and grants from the central Government or institution or other source.
(2)The State Government shall, Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 7/21 by notification, declare an area specified as-
(i) a larger urban area to be a city,
(ii) a medium urban area to be a town, and
(iii) a small town or transitional area to be a Nagar Panchayat or urban growth centre."
Section 4 thereof provides publication of declaration by the State Government of its intention to constitute a municipal area and reads thus:-
"4. Publication of declaration.(1) The State Government may by a notification, published in the official gazette and in at least two leading newspapers, at least one of which shall be in vernacular intelligible conveyed its intention to constitute a municipal area to the inhabitants of the local area concerned.
(2) A copy of the notification shall also be pasted at a conspicuous place in the office of the Collector of the district and, where there is a Municipality, also in the office of the Municipality and in such other public places as the State Government may direct.
(3). Public proclamation about the constitution of a municipal area shall be made either by beating of drum throughout the local area concerned or through any other publicity media."
Section 5 provides for consideration of objections before finally constituting a municipal area. The provisions contained in Section 5 are as under:-
"5.Consideration of objection.-Any inhabitant of the city, town Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 8/21 or Nagar Panchayat in respect of which a notification has been published under section 4 may, object to anything contained in the notification and submit his objection in writing to the state Government within one month from the date of its publication, the State Government shall take such objection into consideration."
Section 6 thereof provides for publication of notification constituting such large urban area, city, town or transitional area or any specified part thereof as a municipal area and reads as under:-
"6. Constitution of Municipal Area.- On the expiry of one month from the date of publication of notification under section 4 and after consideration of all or any of the objections which may be submitted, the State Government may, by notification, constitute such Large Urban area, city, town or transitional area or any specified part thereof as a municipal area under this Act."
Mr. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned action of the State Government and particularly the notification constituting Mahua Nagar Panchayat (Annexure-10) mainly on the ground that sine qua non for such constitution of Nagar Panchayat as provided under Section 3 of the Municipal Act is that the non agricultural population in such area should be 75% or more of the entire population constituting the Nagar Panchayat. The State Government got a Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 9/21 sample survey done for ascertainment of the aforesaid pre condition. A sample survey was conducted and report was submitted to the Government through the concerned District Magistrate, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure 4/1. It has been submitted that the report is totally vague, unrealistic and unworthy of reliance. If that be so, the decision of the Government based on the said report to constitute the Mahua Nagar Panchayat would become unsustainable in law. Secondly, it has been submitted that the objections were filed by several residents of the proposed Mahua Nagar Panchayat one of them by the petitioner no.1 also. While issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act under Annexure-10 it does not appear that those objections were considered and rejected for the reasons stated therein. The said notification dated 10.4.13 is, therefore, bad in law. The notification (Annexure-10) issued by the government under the statutory power has to be considered in the light of the contents thereof. It cannot be supplemented by any affidavit. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 851]. Although not pleaded but in course of submissions it has also been argued that before constituting Nagar Panchayat the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 10/21 consent of the concerned Gram Panchayat(s) constituting the proposed Mahua Nagar Panchayat were required to be taken but the same has not been done in the present case.
Mr. Ajay, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned notification issued by the State Government. It is submitted that the Principal Secretary of the Government in the concerned department vide his letter dated 15.11.11 called upon the respondent District Magistrate to submit a proposal for creation of Mahua Nagar Panchayat. The respondent District Magistrate by a communication dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure-1) submitted the proposal. Having found the proposal/report not furnishing the relevant details, the State Government vide letter dated 28.11.2011(Annexure-2) directed the District Magistrate to consider the relevant factors in the light of the census report of the year 2001 in place of census report of 2011 and submit a fresh report/proposal. This was deemed necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Municipal Act with regard to the percentage of population/ residents engaged in non agricultural activities. In the light of the said instruction, the respondent District Magistrate vide his letter dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure-3) directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahua to carry out a survey on sample basis to find the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 11/21 volume of population engaged in agricultural and/or non agricultural activities. Such survey was conducted by the respondents and a report dated 14.7.2012 was enclosed . The report was got prepared by the surveyor deputed by the district administration. The sample survey was carried out in villages Mahua Mukundpur and Mahua Singhrai where the largest chunk of population existed. As per 2011 census the total population of Mahua Mukundpur was 8609 out of which 1415 families were randomly surveyed. Similarly, the total population of Mahua Singhrai as per 2011 census was 12678 out of which sample survey was conducted of randomly selected 2206 families. In such sample survey in Mahua Mukundpur 581 residents were found dependent on agricultural activities and remaining respondents constituting those families were found depending on non agricultural activities. Similarly, in Mahua Singhrai 1592 residents were found dependent on agricultural activities and remaining persons/residents were found dependent on non agricultural activities. The conclusion of the survey was that 20.30% of the surveyed population was dependent on agriculture whereas 79.69% of the population residing in the areas were dependent on non agricultural activities. Those conclusions/details in the sample survey report enclosed with the report were relied Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 12/21 on by the respondents for issuing notification dated 30.11.2012 in exercise of its power conferred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Municipal Act. The State Government on being satisfied that the proposed area was a transitional area and, therefore, fit to be constituted into a municipal area known as Nagar Panchayat issued the notification(s) constituting five villages spreading over Mahua Mukundpur and Mahua Singhrai Gram Panchayat(s) into the Nagar Panchayat. By the same order /notification the State Government invited objections/suggestions by the local inhabitants of the area through the District Magistrate/ Divisional Commissioner within one month from the date of publication of the notification. Few objections were raised by residents of those area which were duly considered and thereafter final notification vide memo no. 951 dated 10.4.2013 (Annexure-10) was issued creating Mahua Nagar Panchayat under Section 6 of the Municipal Act . Relying on few orders passed by this Court, it has been submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned action and the notification taken/issued by the State Government.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record.
The petitioners have submitted that the sample survey conducted in this case and forming the foundation of the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 13/21 impugned notification is totally unrealistic if not perfunctory. The details provided therein do not match. Admittedly, those survey even on sample basis was not carried out in three villages called Sadapur Mahua, Gopalchak and Trilokchak and in a cryptic manner it was concluded that 79.69% of the population/residents of the area were dependent/involved on/in non agricultural occupation(s). Considering the said submission this Court perused the materials placed on record including the report contained in Annexure-4. The total population as per 2011 census of the areas incorporated in the Mahua Nagar Panchayat was reported at 26244. The 2011 census, however, did not disclose the dependency of the population on agricultural or non agricultural activities . The earlier report submitted in this regard was not found disclosing the relevant factors as per Section 3 of the Act. The State respondent, therefore, directed for submission of fresh report/proposal in the light of the requirements of law as contained in Section 3 of the Municipal Act i.e. the percentage of population dependent on agricultural /non agricultural activities after conducting a sample survey. A joint survey report (Annexure-4/1) prepared by the Surveyor of the Government was submitted. The survey report indicates that out of total population of the proposed area figuring at 25993 (as per 2011 census) a Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 14/21 sample survey was conducted of 3621 families in two most populated villages/areas called Mahua Mukundpur and Mahua Singhrai. It was found in such survey that only 2173 persons ( ref. Column 9 of the report) out of the total numbers of family surveyed were actually involved in agricultural activities whereas 8528 persons/residents ( ref. column 10 thereof) were found dependent on non agricultural activities. 2173 of the total population surveyed constituted 20.30% whereas 8528 respondents of the survey of the 3621 families surveyed constituted 79.69%. Looking to the survey report in this manner this Court does not find any serious error in the survey report making it totally unrealistic. The survey was conducted only on those villages which were densely populated. That apart, the report further details the other relevant points/factors evidencing upward transition of the area from rural to urban. It discloses that the proposed area locates different government/ semi government offices. It also records the presence of other business establishment(s) such as cold storage, English Convent School, gas/fuel station, movie theater and residential hotels etc. The road connecting two important districts of the State besides other internal roads cross through Mahua Bazar whereon the density of vehicular traffic is high. These details/factors evident from the Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 15/21 report (Annexure-4) besides the percentage of dependency of the population on non agricultural activities /occupation(s) provided the basis to the State Government to infer that the complexion of Mahua town and adjoining areas thereto had changed showing its upward transition from rural to semi urban area. There may be some defect in stating/narrating some relevant factors or figures in the sample survey report as pointed out by Mr. Manglam but, in my view, the same would not render the sample survey report totally unworthy of reliance particularly keeping in focus the adequacy of other relevant factors evident from the report submitted by the District Magistrate which are not in dispute. Moreover, the decision to progress from a Panchayat to a Nagar Panchayat is basically an executive matter although regulated by statutory provision. This conversion/progression is nothing but only an indication of the development of the society matching the aspiration of the people to have a better standard of living as the benefits that flow to a Nagar Panchayat are better and far improved than those available to the Gram Panchayat. One should not fail to notice that the society is not static. Transition is inevitable with the upward growth of the nation . The society has developed or moved upwardly can be evident from diverse factors . From the pleadings on record this Court is satisfied that Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 16/21 the relevant details submitted by the District Magistrate did provide adequate materials enabling the State Government to be satisfied and proceed further in the matter and issue notification dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure-5) declaring its intention to specify areas detailed therein as the transitional area and to constitute those areas into a municipal area to be known as Nagar Panchayat, Mahua. The contention of the petitioners in this regard does not find the approval of the Court.
The next contention of Mr. Manglam is that the objection/suggestions filed by the petitioners and others have not been considered before issuing the final notification constituting the Nagar Panchayat vide Annexure-10. At least it is not reflected from the said order that such objection filed under section 5 of the Act was considered and rejected. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the petitioner this Court would bear in mind two relevant aspects of the mater. Firstly, the objection as submitted by the petitioner no.1 was with respect to the vagueness of the survey report submitted through the respondent District Magistrate and, secondly, the relevant provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act (already noticed hereinabove). The objection filed by the petitioner that the sample survey report was wholly cryptic and there is no other material before the Government to Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 17/21 record its satisfaction that the proposed area had changed its complexion and had become a transitional area (semi urban area) has already been negated by this Court relying on materials already on record. In this context it may be noticed that although Section 5 provides for consideration of the objection to be filed by any inhabitant of the proposed area within one month from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 but on reading Section 6 thereof it appears the State Government is only required to take into account those objections. There is no statutory duty cast on the State Government for disposal of those representations/objections after recording reasons therefor. Unless there is any such provision which required the State Government to dispose of such objection giving reasons therefor the same cannot be construed woven into the Act.The impugned notification (Annexure-10) clearly records that the State Government took into consideration the objections before issuing the same. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, it has clearly been stated that the objections/suggestions were considered by the Government before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Court in taking the aforesaid view is conscious of the fact that such notification(s) and constitution of municipal bodies are made/passed in larger Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 18/21 public interest to meet the ever increasing aspirations of the citizens. Even otherwise, as noticed above, the objection of the petitioner was principally with respect to the sample survey report attached along with the report of the District Magistrate depicting presence of required percentage of population of the inhabitants of the proposed area(s) dependant on non agricultural occupation/activities. I have already noticed the survey report submitted by the District Magistrate and found the defects therein unworthy for its total rejection. In the report (Annexure-4) further relevant details showing eligibility of the area to be treated and declared as transitional area were also found and reported. More over, conversion of Panchayat ( rural area) into Nagar Panchayat ( semi urban area) is a serious exercise which is taken for the betterment of the people( inhabitants) of the area. The writ Court, in such matter of executive policy done in the exercise of statutory power, should not interfere with lightly until and unless a strong case is made therefor. This Court would rely in this regard on the relevant observations made by this Court in an order passed in CWJC No. 737 of 2010 ( Pulendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The state of Bihar & Ors.).
"The decision to progress from a Panchayat to a Nagar Parishad is basically an executive matter. It is however regulated by statutory requirements. This conversion Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 19/21 is nothing but only an indication of the development of the society matching the aspirations of the people who desire a better standard of living social, political and economic as the benefits that flow to a Nagar Parishad are better and for improved than that available to the Panchayat. A developing society is not static. Therefore, it is not each and every error in procedure that may necessarily call for interference by the writ court. Unless grave prejudice is shown to have been caused, the writ court shall not lightly to interfere. The conversion of the Panchayat to a Nagar Parishad is a serious exercise from public resources involving considerable man power, man-hours and public finances. .........."
Before closing the case this Court would deal with the submission of the petitioners that the impugned notification is vitiated on account of non compliance of section 11 of the Act of 2006 for which reliance has been placed on an order of this Court passed in case No. 677 of 2010. Firstly, no such pleadings in writ petition has been made and shown to the Court enabling the State respondents to place on record their response. Secondly, the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 677 of 2010 was in an entirely different factual background. Challenge in the said writ petition was to the Government notification dated 26.5.2009 whereby the State Government converted the Municipal Council to Municipal Corporation by adding some area(s) of the neighbouring Gram Panchayat in order to exceed Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 20/21 population to two lacs and more. This Court noticed the proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 2006 to conclude that the same was not complied with although the relief was not granted only on the said count. Section 11(1) of the Act of 2006 reads as under:-
"11(1)Declaration of Gram Panchayat Area.-(1) Subject to the general or special orders of the Government, the District Magistrate may, by notification in the District Gazette, declare any local area comprising a village or a group of contiguous villages or part thereof to be a Gram Panchayat area with a population within its territory as nearly as seven thousand:
Provided that the District Magistrate may, after consultation with the Gram Panchayat concerned, by a notification, at any time, include within or exclude from any Gram Panchayat Area any village or part thereof and alter the name of the Gram Panchayat."
It is, thus, seen that the District Magistrate is required to make a consultation with the Gram Panchayat and thereafter issue a notification either to include within or exclude from any Gram Panchayat Area any village or part thereof and alter the name of the Gram Panchayat. On a plain reading thereof it appears that such consultation and notification is required only when the District Magistrate proposes to include within or exclude from any Gram Panchayat Area any village or part thereof. This requirement in law is therefore for creation of a new Patna High Court CWJC No.12342 of 2013 (5) dt.18-04-2014 21/21 Gram Panchayat effecting alteration in the area(s) of existing Gram Panchayat(s). This is not the case at hand. That apart, the Municipal Act itself provides for inclusion of such area to be declared as transitional area, urban area or larger urban area. No provision in the Municipal Act has been shown by the petitioners that before doing so any notification by the District Magistrate is required if part of the area constituting a Gram Panchayat is required to be notified as transitional area. Furthermore, the Court in the said case in view of specific provisions contained in Section 8 of the Municipal Act found that the view of the Municipal Council (Municipality) was not obtained before declaring by addition of certain area(s) as Municipal Corporation. The contention of the petitioners is, therefore, not held sustainable in law.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit to the challenge of the notification dated 10.04.2013 (Annexure-10) at the behest of the petitioners. The writ application fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order at to costs.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-