Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsels, Sri T. Venkat Raju Goud, Sri K. Pavan Kumar, Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for Sri V. Venkata Mayur, Sri K. Buchi Babu, Sri Poodathu Amarender and Sri K. Upender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent-State.

11. The combined argument of the learned senior counsel and other learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases is that the amending Act 4 of 2018 cannot run counter to the basic structure of the parent Acts 1994 & Act 1965 and the amendment brought in is violative of 73rd & 74th Amendment to Constitution of India, especially Article 243Q (2) of the Constitution and lacks legislative competence. That no procedure, as envisaged in Act 1994 or Act 1965 or Rules made thereunder is followed much less the publication of the villages sought to be merged with the Municipal Corporation with specific ward numbers. That no notice was given either to the elected representatives of the respective village or the villagers since act of inclusion/exclusion of the villages into the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or creation/up-gradation into Municipality, as the case may be, affected the rights of the elected representatives of the villages as well as rights of the villagers who are members of the Gram Panchayats. That the villages merged into Municipal Corporations and Municipalities are mostly agriculturally dominated and there are no non-agricultural activities in these villages and they are still continuing as Gram Panchayats. That the members of the villages are deprived of rural employment and the benefits of various schemes provided to the villagers who are members of the Gram Panchayats under the State and Union governments and they will lose these benefits if the merger takes place which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the Telangana Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the limits of Municipalities/Nagara Panchayats) Rules, 2006, for short "the Rules" are framed in that behalf for inclusion or exclusion of the villages issued vide GO Ms.No.63, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elections-II) Department, dated 18-02-2006, scientific data was not collected, except calling for proposals from the District Collectors. Decisions in PROF. BK CHANDRASHEKAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, RAVEENDRAN vs. STATE OF KERALA2, STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. K. SHYAM SUNDER3 & CHAMPA LAL vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN4 are relied on.

{Whether the impugned amending Act 4 of 2018 violates Articles 14, 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India & 243Q(2) of the Constitution}

14. Article 243P of the Constitution deals with definitions and unless the context otherwise requires,

(a) xxxxxx

(b) xxxxxx

(c) xxxxxx (omitted)

(d) Municipal area means the territorial area of a Municipality as is notified by the Governor;

(e) Municipality means an institution of self government constituted under Article 243Q;

(f) Panchayat means a Panchayat constituted under Article 243B;

15. Article 243Q contemplates constitution of three different categories of bodies viz., (i) a Nagar Panchayat, for a transitional area, (ii) a Municipal Council, for a smaller urban areas; and (iii) a Municipal Corporation, for a larger urban area.

16. Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution reads thus:-

"(2) In this article, "a transitional area", "a smaller urban area" or "a larger urban area" means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part"

21. It is to be seen that the areas which have the potential of being declared as larger urban areas are already constituted under Section 2 (d) of the Act 1994 and a notification by way of G.O.Ms. No 300, dated 07-04-2015, was issued under Section 2 (d) of the Act and a Corporation is deemed to have been constituted under Section 3 (1) of the Act which is not disputed nor challenged by the petitioners.

22. It is to be seen that what is contemplated under Article 243Q (2) is only for constitution of a transitional area, a smaller urban area or a larger urban area and it does not deal with alteration of those areas i.e. inclusion/exclusion of the villages therefrom or thereto, as the case may be, and at the same time and does not prohibit the inclusion/exclusion. But the parent Acts 1994 and 1965 provide for the same, which is not challenged. As per the counter affidavit filed in the matter, the exercise carried out by the State i.e. calling for proposals from the District Collectors of the respective Districts and appointment of Special Officer in a way complies the criteria as appearing in Article 243Q (2) as also in Section 3 (2) & (3) of the Act 1994 and Section 3 (1-A), Section 2 (42-a) of the Act, 1965 for that matter the procedure contemplated under Rules made thereunder in that regard and after considering the proposals, the legislature chose to pass the impugned legislation. In other words, the State, before passing the impugned legislation has undertaken the exercise what is prescribed under the provisions noted above, instead by the Governor, but by itself. Therefore, the criteria laid under Article 234Q(2) for formation of larger urban area or small urban area, as the case may be, is followed. Power of the legislature to make legislation or to bring an amendment to a statute is always on a higher pedestal than the power conferred on the Governor or State Government under the legislation, more so in the instant case, the impugned legislation has received the assent of the Governor.