Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 6038, 6039, 6252, 6253, 6254, 6255, 6289, 6318 and 6320 of 2002. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 6038 of 2002, which has been filed by the then Chairman and the Trustees of Improvement Trust, Amritsar. These petitions filed by the Chairmen and/or Trustees of various Improvement Trusts "of the State of Punjab are directed against dissolution of trusts in pursuance to power of the respondent State under Section 103 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, 'the Trust Act'). The petitioners have claimed that since, they owe allegiance to the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) or Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), they have been victimised by the Congress Government and the dissolution of trusts after capturing power in the State of Punjab by the Congress is malicious.

Sarvesh Kaushal, I.A.S. Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Local Government.

9. A separate written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3 in which similar stand has been taken stating that the Administrator had taken over the trust w.e.f. 5.4.2002.

10. Sarv Shri M.L. Sarin, Hemant Sarin, P.S. Dhaliwal and Dheeraj Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that Section 103 of the Trust Act is liable to be declared as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution because it confer on the State Government unbridled and arbitrary power to dissolve an Improvement Trust. They have argued that the notifications dissolving the trust, issued on 4.4.2002 (P-8) and appointing the Deputy Commissioner as Administrator (P-9), are also vitiated because there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and the rule of audi alteram partem. It has then been contended that Section 72-F of the Trust Act contemplates issuance of show cause notice before suspension and supersession of trusts and no such safeguards are provided when the trust is to be dissolved under Section 103 of the Trust Act. According to the learned Counsel, in the public perception supersession or dissolution of trusts has one and the same meaning. According to the learned Counsel the order is otherwise stigmatic because general perception of the masses for dissolution of Trusts is that the petitioners are incompetent to perform their duties imposed by the Trust Act or that they had abused their powers. They have maintained that once this is the consequence then a stigma would attach to them and principles of natural justice requiring affording of opportunity of hearing must be read into the power exercisable under Section 103 of the Trust Act. They have argued that in fact power should be deemed to be exercised under Section 72-F of the Trust Act as individual remarks against integrity and honesty have been made in the written statement. In support of their submissions they have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh Sud, Chairman Improvement Trust Jullundur v. State of Punjab (1974)76 P.L.R. 624, and argued that Section 5 as it stood at the relevant time was held to have conferred on the State Government an unbridled, uncanalised and arbitrary power to remove a Chairman of the Trust because no guidelines were provided in accordance with the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners have also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan , where principles of natural justice were held to be applicable when the Municipal Committee was superseded and a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress , and have argued that principles of natural justice must be read into any provision unless they are expressly excluded.

x x x x

103. Ultimate dissolution of trust, and transfer of its assets and liabilities to the committee.- (1) When all schemes sanctioned under this Act have been executed or have been so far executed as to render the continued existence of the trust, in the opinion of the State Government, unnecessary, or when in the opinion of the State Government it is expedient that the Trust shall cease to exist, the State Government may by notification declare that the trust shall be dissolved from such date as may be specified in this behalf in such notification; and the trust shall be deemed to be dissolved accordingly.

19. A perusal of Section 103 of the Trust Act, however, shows that it does not deal with an individual case but provide for a situation of ultimate dissolution of trust and transfer of its assets/liabilities. Sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Trust Act deals with various situations in which the ultimate step of dissolution could be taken. Firstly, in a case when all schemes sanctioned under the Trust Act have been executed then dissolution of the trust is permitted. Likewise, whatever schemes have been executed till the date of decision to dissolve, the Government has formed an opinion that the continued existence of trust is unnecessary then the dissolution is permitted. Another situation contemplated is when the State Government forms an opinion that the trust must cease to exist as it is expedient then it could dissolve the trust by issuance of notification. Sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Trust Act deals with the vesting of properties, funds and liabilities after the dissolution.