Per NAIK A.B., J.:---By these two writ petitions the residents of Ahmednagar and Dhule are challenging the action taken by the Government converting the smaller urban area i.e. Municipal Council of Ahmednagar and Dhule respectively into a larger urban area i.e. Municipal Corporation. It is not disputed before us that common questions of law are involved in both these writ petitions and both the petitions can be disposed of by the common judgment. Hence, we are disposing of both these petitions by this judgment. Before we advert to narrate the factual aspect and the submissions that are advanced by the respective learned Advocates including the Advocate General, in our view most of the contentions raised in the petition and agitated before us are squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in (State of Maharashtra and another v. Jalgaon Municipal Council others)1, reported in 2003(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)709 : A.I.R. 2003 S.C.W. 1061 (hereinafter referred to as Jalgaon Municipal Council case). Both the learned Advocates for the petitioners have tried to impress upon us that the question that is raised and decided by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case will not be applicable in these two writ petitions. We will consider this aspect little later when we consider the rival submissions. Before that, we will note down for our assistance the question formulated by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case:-- Question No. (1) : Whether any hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and Constitution of Municipal Council and Constitution of Municipal Corporation is violative of Constitution of Part IXA. (This question is not raised in these petitions). (2) The effect of census figures published being called provisional. (3) Whether the population of Jalgaon was denied and effective opportunity of raising objections and hence the principles of natural justice were violated. (4) Want of consultation with the Municipal Council effect. 2. When we commenced the hearing of these petitions and before we concluded the hearing Shri Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has stated that there is no consultation with the Municipal Council, Dhule and in such situation in view of the answer to the question No. 4 by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, the Government will consult the Municipal Council, Dhule and take appropriate decision. So far as Ahmednagar Municipal Council is concerned the learned Special Counsel submitted that before initiation of proposal of Municipal Council smaller urban area into a larger urban area the Municipal Council itself has passed a resolution requesting the Government of Maharashtra to convert the smaller urban area into a larger urban area and according to the learned Special Counsel there is sufficient compliance of consultation. In the latter part of hearing when the learned Advocate General stepped in and made his submissions he candidy submitted that both Municipal Councils namely Dhule Municipal Council and Ahmednagar Municipal Council were not consulted and for want of consultation the impugned notification required to be set aside and time bound programme be given be the Government to complete the process of consultation and after process of consultation with both the Municipal Councils as contemplated under section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, the notification as required under section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 will be considered. We will consider this concession little later, we now note the facts in these two petitions. The petition filed by the residents of Ahmednagar being earlier in point of time we will give facts in that petition first and then will refer to the facts in petition filed by the residents of Dhule. 3. Before proceeding further we note down following undisputed facts in both these petitions. (a) Ahmednagar Municipal Council and Dhule Municipal Council even prior to introduction of Part IXA of the Constitution of India were constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965. (b) Both the Municipal Councils are class A Municipal Councils. (c) After introduction or Part IXA of the constitution both the Municipal Councils which were constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) are smaller urban areas. 4. During the course of our judgment we will refer to the various orders passed by this Court in the above said two writ petitions, to appreciate the developments that took place during pendency of the petitions and the petitions were amended with leave of the Court. 5. 4. During the course of our judgment we will refer to the various orders passed by this Court in the above said two writ petitions, to appreciate the developments that took place during pendency of the petitions and the petitions were amended with leave of the Court. 5. The facts regarding Ahmednagar petition: In the year 1988 i.e. on 29-7-1988 the Government of Maharashtra submitted a proposal to alter the limit of existing Municipal Council and thereby the Government of Maharashtra issued a proclamation in pursuance to the provisions of section 6 read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of Unamended Act, 1965. By the said proclamation the Government of Maharashtra had announced its intention to issue notification under cause A of sub-section (1) of section 6 of Unamended Act, 1965, to alter the limits of Ahmednagar Municipal Council, District Ahmednagar by including the area of villages shown in Schedule A, after inclusion the revised boundaries of the Municipal area as indicated in Schedule B. By the said proclamation all persons who wanted to raise any objection to the proposal are called upon to submit in writing with the reasons thereof to the Collector, Ahmednagar within two months from the publication of the proclamation in Official Gazette. Schedule A of the said proclamation gives list of 17 villages and their respective boundaries in detail. Thereafter, the objections were received and after considering the objections received and suggestions made by the residents of Ahmednagar city, the Government of Maharashtra by the order dated 30-4-1997 cancelled the said notification on 29-7-1988. After the order dated 30-4-1997 the Government of Maharashtra again took up the issue of extending the limit of the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and accordingly proclamation came to be issued on 11-6-1998 as required under Clause (13) of sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Amended Act, 1965 and the Government declared its intention to issue notification under Clause A of sub-section (1) of section 6 of 1965 Act. The said proclamation disclosed the Municipal limit to be extended which will cover 11 villages referred in the said proclamation. The said proclamation is published with the Schedules A and B which describes the villages and the relevant survey numbers of those villages which will be included and, Schedule B indicates the boundaries thereof. The said proclamation disclosed the Municipal limit to be extended which will cover 11 villages referred in the said proclamation. The said proclamation is published with the Schedules A and B which describes the villages and the relevant survey numbers of those villages which will be included and, Schedule B indicates the boundaries thereof. After the publication of proclamation dated 11-6-1998 objections were received by the Collector Ahmednagar and the objections were forwarded by the Collector to the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra was of the opinion that the objections received were insufficient, invalid, not raising any valid grounds, the same came to be rejected. Thereafter consulting the Ahmednagar Municipal Council and other local authorities the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Clause A of sub-section (1) of section 6 decided to alter the limit of Ahmednagar Municipal Council with effect from 1-7-1999. The areas which are included in Municipal area are referred to in Schedule A and the boundaries of the Municipal Council after inclusion of the local areas specified in Schedule A are shown in Schedule B. After the notification dated 29-6-1999 the Government of Maharashtra expressed its desire to delete village Kedgaon from Ahmednagar Municipal Council as per Notification dated 29-6-1999 and accordingly a Government Resolution dated 24-4-2001 came to be issued. The Government of Maharashtra has changed its view and by the Resolution dated 12-8-2002 cancelled the proclamation published on 24-4-2001 under section 3 sub-section (3) of the Act of 1965. 6. As the proclamation dated 24-4-2001 is cancelled by the Government decision dated 12-8-2001 for the purpose of our decision the limits of Ahmednagar Municipal Council will be as published vide notification dated 29-6-1999. On 16th October, 2001 the Government of Maharashtra issued a proclamation in exercise of powers conferred upon it by sub-section (2) of section 3 of Act of 1949, whereby the Government of Maharashtra has announced its intention to declare the Ahmednagar smaller urban area in Ahmednagar District to be a larger urban area which shall form a city and shall have a Corporation by the name Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmednagar. The proclamation issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 16th October, 2001 reads thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. PROCLAMATION Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial, Townships Act, 1965. No. GEN, 102000/190/C.R.9/2000/UD. The proclamation issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 16th October, 2001 reads thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. PROCLAMATION Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial, Townships Act, 1965. No. GEN, 102000/190/C.R.9/2000/UD. 24.---Whereas by Government Notification, Urban Development Department No. GEN/102000/190/C.R.9/2000/U.D.24, dated the 16th October, 2001, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom.LIX of 1949), the Government of Maharashtra has announced its intention to declare the Ahmednagar Smaller Urban Area in the Ahmednagar District to be larger urban area which shall form a city and shall have a corporation by the name ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmednagar"". Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 read with sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Mah.XL of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Municipal Councils Act""), the Government of Maharashtra hereby announces its intention to issue a notification under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Municipal Councils Act that the existing Ahmednagar smaller urban area of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council shall cease to be a municipal area within the meaning of the Municipal Councils Act, with effect from the date of coming into force of the notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1919 (Bom. LIX of 1949), specifying Ahmednagar larger urban area, which shall form a city and shall have Municipal Corporation known by the name ""Municipal Corporation of the City of the Ahmednagar"". 2. All persons who entertain any objections to the said proposal are required to submit the same, with reasons therefore in writing to the Collector of the District of Ahmednagar within two months from the date of publication of this proclamation in the Official Gazette. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. RAMANAND TIWARI Principal Secretary to Government."" On the same day a notification came to be issued as required under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1949 which reads thus : ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. NOTIFICATION Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. RAMANAND TIWARI Principal Secretary to Government."" On the same day a notification came to be issued as required under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1949 which reads thus : ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. NOTIFICATION Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. No. GEN.102000/190/C.R.9/UD.24.---The following draft of notification which the Government of Maharashtra proposes to make in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom. LIX of 1949), is hereby published, as required by sub-section (4) of said section 3 of the said Act, for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby and notice is hereby given that the said draft will be taken into consideration by the Government of Maharashtra on or after 18th day of December, 2001. 2. Any objection or suggestion which may be received by the Collector of the District of Ahmednagar, from any persons with respect to the aforesaid draft, before the aforesaid date will considered by the Government. NOTIFICATION No.GEN.102000/190/C.R.9/UD.24.---Whereas the total population of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council comprising Ahmednagar smaller urban area, District Ahmednagar, is according to the provisional figures of the Census for the year 2001, is 3,07,455. And whereas, the Government of Maharashtra having regard to the factors mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, considers it expedient to declare, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom.LIX of 1949) (hereinafter referred as ""the said Act""), the said Ahmednagar, Smaller Urban Area of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council to be larger urban area. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) read with sub-section (2-A) of section 3 of the said Act, and after previous publication of the draft notification as required by sub-section (4) of said section 3, the Government of Maharashtra hereby specifies the 18th of December, 2001, to be the date from which the area specified in the Schedule appended hereto, which comprises of the whole of the Ahmednagar smaller urban area, in District Ahmednagar shall be Ahmednagar larger urban area, which shall form a city, having a Corporation to be known by the name of ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmednagar"" for the purposes of the said Act. Schedule Area which shall form the Ahmednagar larger urban area which shall form a city, having a Corporation to be known by the name of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmednagar."" ""Ahmednagar smaller urban area and entire area of revenue village Burhannagar and Nagardovale, District Ahmednagar."" By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. RAMANAND TIWARI Principal Secretary to Government."" 7. Pursuant to the issuance of certification dated 16th October calling upon the objections and suggestions from the public regarding the proposed Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar, several objections were received by the Collector (which are made part of this writ petition). On filing of objection, some of the residents of Ahmednagar city approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 20-11-2001 with the following prayers : ""(A) Call for the Record and Proceedings of the Case; (B) Quash and set aside the notification dated 16-10-2001 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for declaring the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar as larger urban area i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar w.e.f. 18-12-2001 being illegal, arbitrary and being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g), 21, 243-Q of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 read with section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, grant an injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, their officers, and subordinates from taking any steps for converting the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar from smaller urban area to the larger urban area i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar w.e.f. 18-12-2001, in pursuance of the notification dated 16-10-01 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, grant stay to the both the notifications dated 16-10-2001 for ceasing the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar as smaller urban area and for converting the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar into larger urban area i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar w.e.f. 18-12-2001 in pursuance of the notifications dated 16-10-2001 and for that purpose issue necessary orders. AMENDED PRAYERS (AA) Hold and declare that the ordinance dated 15-11-2001 bearing Ordinance No. XXVII of 2001, issued by the Government of Maharashtra Exh. AMENDED PRAYERS (AA) Hold and declare that the ordinance dated 15-11-2001 bearing Ordinance No. XXVII of 2001, issued by the Government of Maharashtra Exh. 5 amending the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as well as Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India and strike down the same. (AAA) Hold and declare that the provisions of section 5 in Chapter III adding explanation to the sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as well as the provisions of section 11 of the Amending Act No. VIII/2002 which amends section 2(33) by adding explanation, as well as section 12 of the Amending Act No. VIII/2002 which amends section 3(3) whereby, the period of 2 months which has been reduced to 30 days, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, Article 243 r/w. Articles 330 and 332 and section 22 of Amending Act No. VIII of 2002 of the Constitution of India and strick down the same, and for that purpose issue necessary orders. (BB) Hold and declare that the said notification dated 15-11-2001 alongwith the proclamation dated 15-11-2001 at Exhibit B collectively are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 read with Article 243 and Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (DD) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, grant stay to the execution, operation and/or implementation of the impugned ordinance dated 15-11-2001 bearing Ordinance No. XXVII of 2001, issued by the Government of Maharashtra Exh. 5 amending the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (DDD) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition grant stay to the execution, operation and/or implementation of the notification dated 15-11-2001 alongwith the proclamation dated 15-11-2001 at Exhibit R collectively and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (B1) Hold and declare that the notification dated 1-12-2001 (Exh. V) issued under sub-section (3) of section 6 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ceasing the respondent No. 4. V) issued under sub-section (3) of section 6 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ceasing the respondent No. 4. Municipal Council, Ahmednagar to be a smaller urban area is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 243-Q, 243-P of the Constitution of India read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and strike down the same. (B2) Hold and declare that the notification dated 1-12-2001 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 constituting the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar as larger urban area i.e. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmednagar in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is ultra vires of Articles 243-Q, 243-V of the Constitution of India and strike down the same; and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (B3) Hold and declare that the notification dated 7-9-2001 amending the provisions of sub-clause (3) of section 5 of 1949 Act is illegal, arbitrary and therefore, violative of Article 14 read with Articles 243-P(g), 243-Q and 243-P of the Constitution of India, and strike down the same. (B4) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 5 State Election Commission to complete the election process, namely, the polling and take further steps for the purposes of declaring the results. (E5) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, grant an injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, their officers and subordinates from taking any steps in pursuance of the said notification which is at Exhibit T dated 1-11-2001 Exh. U dated 1-12-2001 for the purposes of constituting the respondent No. 4 as larger urban area, namely, Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (E2) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition grant stay to the ordinance dated 7-9-2001 which is at Exhibit X amending the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (E3) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, grant an injunction directing the respondent No. 5 State Election Commission to complete the election process i.e. further stage of election, namely polling for the purposes of holding the election to the post of President of the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and 21 Councillors from Ward Nos. 1 to 21 and declare the results and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (E4) Grant ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (E1 to E3)."" 8. Writ petition was circulated for motion hearing before this Court on 20-11-2001 in vacation. The vacation Judge (one of us A.B. Naik, J.) issued notice of admission returnable on 3-12-2001. The petitioner sought leave to amend which was granted. The scheduled date of hearing as per the order dated 20-11-2001 was 3-12-2001 but the hearing was preponed at the request of the petitioners and the petition was taken up for hearing on 21-11-2001. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties this Court passed the following order: ""The learned Special Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 makes a statement that already objections are received with respect to formation of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation and the objections are being considered by the concerned authorities and the decision is to be taken to that effect; and that the decision will be taken very soon. The elections for the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar, are to take place and the programme is already declared by the Election Commission and, therefore, the decision has to be taken before 9th December, 2001; and the Government will take decision as early as possible. Considering all these circumstances, the matter is adjourned till 3rd December, 2001. If any decision is taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 with respect to formation of Municipal Corporation for Ahmednagar, then the petitioners may take appropriate steps in this petition itself. If any decision is taken before 3rd December, 2001, the same be communicated to this Court immediately. High on Board."" As per the order dated 29-11-2001 the writ petition was placed before this Court on 3-12-2001 and at the request of the parties the writ petition was adjourned to 5-12-2001. On 5-12-2001 the learned Counsel for the petitioners filed the draft amendment. As per the leave granted on 20-11-2001, this Court permitted the petitioner to amend the petition as per the draft produced and adjourned the matter for further hearing on 10-12-2001. By the said amendment the petitioners amended the petition and incorporated paragraph 11-A to 11-F and added prayer Clauses AA, BB, DD, DDD. As per the leave granted on 20-11-2001, this Court permitted the petitioner to amend the petition as per the draft produced and adjourned the matter for further hearing on 10-12-2001. By the said amendment the petitioners amended the petition and incorporated paragraph 11-A to 11-F and added prayer Clauses AA, BB, DD, DDD. The amendment which was incorporated on 20-11-2001 relates to the challenge to validity of ordinance proclaimed by the Governor of Maharashtra being Ordinance No. XXVII of 2001 in particular the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the 1965 Act, as unconstitutional and beyond scope of Article 213 of the Constitution of India. The petition then heard on 13-12-2001 and after hearing the parties in detail this Court passed following order: ""1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Counsel Shri R.B. Raghuwanshi, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri, S.B. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. By a proclamation dated 15th November, 2001, the Government of Maharashtra proclaimed that the objections to the proposal for forming of Ahmednagar Larger Urban Area shall be entertained within a period of 30 days or such other period not less than 30 days as may be fixed by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette. Earlier notification was issued on 16th October, 2000 and under that notification the period of 60 days was given for raising objections. But, because of the proclamation dated 15th November, 2001, the period is curtailed to 30 days for giving objections. 3. When this matter came up before this Bench on 28-11-2001 no stay was given to this proclamation dated 15th November, 2001 and it was only directed that if any decision is taken with respect of formation of Municipal Corporation of Ahmednagar, then the petitioners would be entitled to effect amendment in the present writ petition. The respondents were also directed to communicate the decision to the Court immediately. It is communicated that the decision is taken on 1st December, 2001, copy of the decision is produced on record, and as per this decision, the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation is to come into existence on 17th December, 2001. 4. A similar proclamation 15th November, 2001 was issued with respect to the Jalgaon Municipal Council curtailing the period from 60 days to 30 days for presenting the objections. 4. A similar proclamation 15th November, 2001 was issued with respect to the Jalgaon Municipal Council curtailing the period from 60 days to 30 days for presenting the objections. (Jalgaon Municipal Council v. State of Maharashtra)2, Writ Petition No. 4730 of 2001 reported in 2002(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)35 was filed in this Court and that writ petition is finally disposed of by the other Division Bench of this Court. By that decision, the proclamation dated 15th November, 2001 issued with respect to Jalgaon Municipal Council is quashed and set aside as admitted at the Bar. Because of that, the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation cannot be formed at this stage. 5. No doubt, in Writ Petition No. 4730 of 2001 on 21-11-2001 a direction was given to the authorities not to take any decision in pursuance of the said proclamation. Such direction is not given in the present writ petition. 6. However, as things stand, same proclamation only with difference that instead of Jalgaon Municipal Council here there is Ahmednagar Municipal Council is quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. At this stage we do not find any reason to differ with the decision given by the Division Bench in the said writ petition. In view of this, as the proclamation dated 15th November, 2001 is quashed any decision which is taken on the basis of that proclamation would not be legal and proper. 7. As per the programme, for the election of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council already published, the stages upto distribution of symbols are completed and the actual voting was to take place on 9-12-2001. But because of the orders issued by the State Election Commission on 3rd December, 2001, the further proceedings of the election are stayed and, therefore, the actual voting did not take place on 9-12-2001. 8. However, once a view is taken by one Division Bench with respect to same proclamation only with the change of the name of the Municipal Council, the judicial propriety requires that in ordinary course we should follow that decision. In view of this, we will have to direct the State Election Commission to proceed with the election programme and to complete the elections. 9. In view of this, we will have to direct the State Election Commission to proceed with the election programme and to complete the elections. 9. Article 243-U of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the Municipal Council shall continue for 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and further Clause (3)(a) of Article 243-U makes a provision that election to constitute the Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in Clause (1). The period of the present Municipal Council, Ahmednagar is expiring on 16th December, 2001 as per the statement made by learned Counsel Shri Shelke and Shri Deshmukh. 10. In view of this, we direct the State Election Commission to hold the elections of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council on 15th of December, 2001 and the Election Commission to give effect to the provisions of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India. This election will be subject to the decision of this writ petition. 11. This order be communicated to the State Election Commission and the State Government is directed to co-operate with the Election Commission for holding the elections of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council on 15th of this month. 12. Stand over after X-Mas vacation. 13. The learned Special Council, Shri Raghuwanshi, makes a request that this order be stayed. However, considering the circumstances, that prayer is rejected. 14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order."" After the said order dated 13-12-2001 passed by this Court the petition was to be heard after Christmas vacation. It appears that the Government of Maharashtra challenged the order passed by this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition in Apex Court. In the meantime, election programme to hold elections of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council by the State Election Commission was declared. The petition was placed for hearing on 19-12-2001 and this Court passed the following order: ""Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Raghuwanshi, the learned Special Counsel with Shri E.P. Sawant, learned G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Shivaji T. Shelke, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed affidavit of the petitioners alongwith the copy of the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 22441/2001 passed by the Apex Court on 14-12-2001 and it is requested that as per the directions given in this order, fresh date for election be fixed by this Court. From the order passed by the Apex Court. From the order passed by the Apex Court, it is noticed that the direction given by this Court on 13-12-2001 directing the Election Commission to hold election on 15th December, 2001 for Municipal Council, Ahmednagar is stayed only that effect with further direction to the parties that they may move this Court afresh to consider and give date for election which is more realistic and capable of being complied with. 3. In this respect, it is to be noted that all the stages of election except that of polling and counting of votes and declaration of results are over. So, now whatever the date is to be fixed is to be fixed for polling and counting of votes and declaration of result. This is clear from the election programme which is produced on record and also Shri Shelke learned Counsel for the Election Commission makes a statement that this is the correct position. 4. The Special Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has placed on record his written submissions with respect to the question for fixing a date of election. 5. The learned Special Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has produced on record the communication from the Secretary, Election Commission dated 2nd December, 2001 and by that communication, it is intimated that the election programme for Ahmednagar Municipal Council and some other Municipal Councils was cancelled. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has produced on record the order from the election commission dated 3rd December, 2001 which only indicates that the election programme was stayed by the Election Commission. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has produced on record the order from the election commission dated 3rd December, 2001 which only indicates that the election programme was stayed by the Election Commission. Today, the learned Counsel Shri Shelke for the Election Commission respondent No. 5 has made a statement that the communication dated 2nd December, 2001 was under signature of the Secretary of the Commission and it is not an authenticated order from the Election Commission while an order issued on 3rd December, 2001 staying the election programme is issued by the Election Commission and, therefore, that is the correct position and that, only the election programme is stayed and not cancelled. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 Election Commission has made a statement that the Election Commission is ready to proceed with the election and any date falling on any Sunday be fixed for that purpose. 7. The learned Counsel for the Municipal Council respondent No. 4 has contended that already much amount is spent by the Municipal Council and further amount will have to be spent by the Municipal Council for this election and if ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed, the Municipal Corporation will come into existence and all these expenses will be wasted. However, we do not think that at this stage we need to go into that question because, the Supreme Court has clearly issued direction that the next date for election be fixed by this Court and that direction is only to be complied with. 8. Considering the direction issued by the Apex Court and all other matters argued by the learned Counsel for the parties, the date for election that means for voting is fixed on 13th January, 2002 and further steps of counting votes and declaration of results be fixed by the Election Commission, accordingly. It is to be noted that the Election Commission is the party responsible to hold elections and now as the date fixed, the election be held. 9. It is brought on record by the learned Special Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 that already a notification is issued by the State Government under which Administrator is appointed for the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar. 9. It is brought on record by the learned Special Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 that already a notification is issued by the State Government under which Administrator is appointed for the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar. In view of this, we direct that the Administrator to continue further for the Ahmednagar Municipal Council and no further steps been by the respondents No. 1 to 3 for formation of the Corporation till further orders from this Court. 10. Copies of this order, duly authenticated by Court Sheristedar be given to the parties. The parties and all concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copy."" In due course the Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition on 10-1-2001. It will be appropriate to refer to the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition as it some bearing in this writ petition: ""The State of Maharashtra assails an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court directing holding of election to be Municipality. The State Government having taken action for constituting a Corporation in place of Municipality, that action is the subject matter of challenge before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court by interim order has directed to hold the Municipal election which was originally scheduled to the 15th of December, 2001 but pursuant to an interim order of this Court the date has now been scheduled to 13th January, 2002. Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, contends that once a Municipal Council is constituted, then its duration should be five years in accordance with the constitutional provisions contained in Article 243-U and, therefore, in the event the writ application is dismissed and the State Government constitutes a Corporation, the Municipal Council will continue to function. This apprehension in our considered opinion, is misconceived inasmuch as under section 341 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 when the whole of the local area comprising a municipal area ceases to be a municipal area, with effect from the date on which such local area ceases to be a municipal area, the Council constituted for such municipal area shall cease to exist or function and the Councillors of the Council shall vacate office. (underline are ours). (underline are ours). Article 243-U of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The expression ""unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being"" would bring within its sweep the provisions of section 341 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and therefore, the moment the Corporation is constituted in accordance with law, the elected Municipal Council would cease to function and so also the Councillors though elected will have to vacate the office. (underline are ours). In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Bombay High Court directing holding of election to the Municipal Council. Since this relates to Constitution of a Corporation which, according to the State Government, would be in the larger interest of the civic body, the High Court would do well in disposing of the writ petition at an early date, preferably within three months from today. Needless to mention, the State Election Commission on whom the burden of holding the election is cast, would discharge its obligation faithfully. These petitions and applications stand disposed of accordingly."" 9. After disposal of the Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition No. (Civil) 2241 of 2001, the writ petition was placed for motion hearing before this Court and this Court issued Rule nisi and directed the hearing of the writ petition to be fixed peremptorily on 27-2-2002. 10. After the petition was admitted the petitioners moved an application being Civil Application No. 883/2002 for amendment of the writ petition. This Court on 27-2-2002 granted the Civil Application and accordingly the petition came to be amended and the petitioners have incorporated paras 11-Q to 11-U, 12-A to 12-C by which the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of explanation to sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 being violative of the constitution as it violates provisions of Article 14, Article 243 read with Articles 330 and 332. 11. In the same time the Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision to convert Jalgaon Municipal Council from smaller urban area into a larger urban area by exercising the power under Act of 1949. 11. In the same time the Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision to convert Jalgaon Municipal Council from smaller urban area into a larger urban area by exercising the power under Act of 1949. The said action of the Government was impugned by the Municipal Council, Jalgaon and the citizens of Jalgaon by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 4730, 4801, 4830 all of 2001. The only difference between these writ petitions and the writ petitions pertaining to the Jalgaon Municipal Council was that the draft notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 3 of 1949 Act and the proclamation under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (2) of section 6 of 1965 Act were challenged. The notification ""met its waterloo"" as the Division Bench of this Court on 11-12-2001 allowed the petitions and set aside the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra. 12. Being aggrieved by the decision of this Court in writ petitions pertaining to the Jalgaon Municipal Council, the State of Maharashtra approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court granted Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court granted Special Leave and allowed the appeal by the judgment dated 14-2-2003 since reported for which we have given brief reference in earlier paragraphs. As the judgment of this Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council was pending before the Apex Court these writ petitions were not heard though, the Apex Court in its order dated 10-1-2001 (supra) has requested this Court to disposed of the writ petitions within three months. From the proceedings of these petitions we noticed that these petitions were placed for hearing for more than one occasion but on account of pendency of the matter relating to Jalgaon Municipal Council in the Apex Court, the hearing could not commence. After the decision of the Apex Court these petitions were listed before us for hearing on 7-3-2003. On 7-3-2003 the hearing came to be adjourned to 11-3-2003. On 11-3-2003 we directed the Registry to list these two petitions for final hearing first on board on 13-3-2003. We commenced the hearing of the writ petitions on 13-3-2003, it remained part heard and the same came to be adjourned to 19-3-2003 on account of holidays on 14th and 18th March, 2003. On 11-3-2003 we directed the Registry to list these two petitions for final hearing first on board on 13-3-2003. We commenced the hearing of the writ petitions on 13-3-2003, it remained part heard and the same came to be adjourned to 19-3-2003 on account of holidays on 14th and 18th March, 2003. On 19-3-2003 we heard the learned Counsel appearing in the matter at length and at hearing it was noticed by us that the constitutional validity of Act No. 8/2002 is challenged in this petition by way of amendment and that too after Rule nisi was issued by this Court. We thought it proper to issue notice to the Advocate General and we ordered to issue notice and the notice was made returnable within two weeks. Accordingly on the date fixed, we heard the writ petitions on 3-4-2003, 4-4-2003, 5-4-2003. On 5-4-2003, the learned Advocate General appeared pursuant to our notice dated 19-3-2003 and made his submissions. We will note down his submissions at the proper place. On the date of hearing i.e. on 19-3-2003 there was no return filed by the Government of Maharashtra and accordingly, as the matter was adjourned the affidavit-in- reply verified by Shri Prabhakar Marotirao Malvadkar, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai came to be filed. We are not at all satisfied about the affidavit-in- reply, we express our dissatisfaction the way the affidavit-in-reply is filed and the contentions are raised in the reply. We expected that a detailed parawise comprehensive affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent State of Maharashtra as the constitutional validity of Act No. VIII of 2002 is challenged, but however, instead of filing comprehensive affidavit reply to the contentions raised in the petition parawise but the reply is filed in general terms. Unfortunately the affidavit-in-reply filed does not refer to the reply to the amendment introduced in the writ petitions. When we express our dissatisfaction about it, when noticing this lacuna the learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the State made oral submissions replying the challenges that are raised in the writ petitions in respect to the amendments. The learned Special Counsel has produced before us the original file containing the record in respect of formation of the Ahmednagar and Dhule Municipal Corporations. The learned Special Counsel has produced before us the original file containing the record in respect of formation of the Ahmednagar and Dhule Municipal Corporations. We have to peruse entire record which caused inconvenience to us and it has taken much time of the Court by going through the entire file. If the documents relied on by the State would have made part of the reply, it would have facilitated us to dispose of these writ petitions expeditiously. Be it as may, we record our dissatisfaction. 13. Coming to the factual aspect in respect of Dhule Municipal Council petition. Seven businessmen from Dhule have approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the proclamation dated 16th October, 2001, and the notification of the even date. ""The facts which are borne out from the petitions are"": Dhule Municipal Council was constituted under Act of 1965 on 15-3-1997. The term of that Council was to come to an end on 15-3-2002. The Municipal Council, was constituted in the month of March, 1997, an ordinance came to be issued in September, 2001 being Maharashtra Ordinance No. XXVIII of 2001 by which the provisions of 1965 Act came to be amended and the procedure of election of President of Municipal Council came to be inserted. By the said ordinance the President of Municipal Council is required to be elected by direct elections. The State Election Commission declared the programme of election to constitute Municipal Council, Dhule on 1st of December, 2001. Before that date the Government of Maharashtra issued notification on 16th October, 2001 which read thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. PROCLAMATION Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. No. GEN.1099/1966/C.R. 125/99 UD-24.---Whereas by Government Notification, Urban Development Department No. GEN. Before that date the Government of Maharashtra issued notification on 16th October, 2001 which read thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 16th October, 2001. PROCLAMATION Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. No. GEN.1099/1966/C.R. 125/99 UD-24.---Whereas by Government Notification, Urban Development Department No. GEN. 1099/1966/C.R. 125/99 UD-24, dated the 16th October, 2001, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Bombay LIX of 1949), the Government of Maharashtra has announced its intention to declare the Dhule Smaller Urban Area in the Jalgaon District to be a larger urban area which shall form a city and shall have a corporation by the name ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Dhule."" Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 read with sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Mah. XL of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as ""the Municipal Councils Act""), the Government of Maharashtra hereby announces its intention to issue a notification under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Municipal Councils Act that the existing Dhule smaller urban area of the Dhule Municipal Council shall cease to be a Municipal area within the meaning of the Municipal Councils Act, with effect from the date of coming into force of the notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom. LIX of 1949), specifying Dhule larger urban area, which shall form a city and shall have a Municipal Corporation known by the name ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Dhule."" 2. All persons who entertain any objections to the said proposal are required to submit the same with reasons therefore in writing to the Collector of the District of Dhule within two months from the date of publication of this Proclamation in the Official Gazette. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. RAMANAND TIWARI, Principal Secretary to Government."" Which followed the notification which reads thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated 16th October, 2001. NOTIFICATION Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. RAMANAND TIWARI, Principal Secretary to Government."" Which followed the notification which reads thus: ""URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated 16th October, 2001. NOTIFICATION Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. No. GEN, 1099/1966/C.R. 125/99/UD-24.---The following draft of notification which the Government of Maharashtra proposes to make in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Bom. LIX of 1949) is hereby published, as required by sub-section (4) of the said section 3 of the said Act, for the information of all person likely to be affected thereby and notice is hereby given that the said draft will be taken into consideration by the Government of Maharashtra as or after 18th of December, 2001. 2. Any objection or suggestion which may be received by the Collector of the District of Dhule, from any person with respect to the aforesaid draft, before the aforesaid date will be considered by the Government. NOTIFICATION NO. GEN, 1099/1966/C.R. 125/99/UD-2.4.---Whereas the total population of the Dhule Municipal Council comprising Dhule smaller urban area, District Dhule, is according to the provisional figures of the Census for the year 2001, is 3,41,473; And whereas, the Government of Maharashtra having regard to the factors mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, considers it expedient to declare, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom. LIX of 1949), (hereinafter referred to as ""the said Act""), the said Dhule smaller urban area of the Dhule Municipal Council to be larger urban area; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) read with sub-section (2-A) of section 3 of the said Act, and after previous publication of the draft notification as required by sub-section (4) of said section 3, the Government of Maharashtra hereby specifies the 18th of December, 2001 to be the date from which the area specified in the Schedule appended hereto, which comprises of the whole of the Dhule smaller urban area, in District Dhule, shall be Dhule larger urban area, which shall form a city, having in Corporation to be known by the name of ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Dhule"" for the purposes of the said Act. Schedule Area which shall form the Dhule larger urban area which shall form a city, having a Corporation to be known by the name of ""Municipal Corporation of the City of Dhule."" ""Dhule smaller urban area District Dhule."" By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. RAMANAND TIWARI Principal Secretary to Government."" 14. Pursuant to the above said proclamation and notification the residents of Dhule submitted their objections to the Collector. The objections that are filed before the Collector are made part of paper book of this writ petition (page 38 to 70). After receipt of the objections the hearing was fixed on 23-11-2001 before the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It is seen from the record that after receipt of the notice dated 23-11-2001 the objectors requested the Hon'ble Minister to postpone the hearing which was fixed on 23-11-2001. The document annexed to the petition shows that in fact the objectors were present before the Hon'ble Minister. In one of the application page 37 the convener of Mahanagar Virodhi Samiti-a Committee to object the formation of Corporation requested the Hon'ble Minister to give 60 days time and to hear all these objections at Dhule as Dhule being the District headquarter. It was not possible for a person to come to Mumbai from Dhule as one has to spend Rs. 500/- to travel. The objections called upon the Government to explain whether decision is taken after scrutinising and complying the provisions of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, particularly relating to the population of Dhule Municipal area and whether the opinion of the Municipal Council as such is taken into consideration. 15. The petition came to be filed in this Court on 18-12-2001 and request of circulation for urgent motion hearing was made on 10-1-2002 and this Court has granted the request and placed the writ petitions for motion hearing on 23-1-2002. It appears that the petition was not listed for motion hearing on 23rd January, 2002 but it was kept on 30-1-2002 and at the request of the learned Advocates for the parties the writ petitions came to be adjourned to 31-1-2002. On 31-1-2002 this petition was listed for motion hearing. It appears that the petition was not listed for motion hearing on 23rd January, 2002 but it was kept on 30-1-2002 and at the request of the learned Advocates for the parties the writ petitions came to be adjourned to 31-1-2002. On 31-1-2002 this petition was listed for motion hearing. On 31-1-2002 this Court adjourned the matter on 11-2-2002 by passing the following order: ""Some of the issue raised in this petition have already been decided by us against the State Government in W.P. No. 4730/2001 and our judgment has been challenged by the State Government in SLP Nos. 1690 1691 of 2002. Shri E.P. Sawant learned Government Pleader on instructions states that the S.L.Ps. are listed for admission on 8th February, 2002 before the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, S.O. to 11th February, 2002 in urgent admissions."" Thereafter, this writ petition was placed for motion hearing on 12-2-2002 and 13-2-2002 and on 14-2-2002 this Court granted leave to amend the petition and also granted Rule nisi. After granting Rule nisi the parties were heard on granting interim relief and on hearing the parties this Court passed a detailed speaking order relevant part reads thus: ""7. Rule to be heard finally on 27-2-2002 alongwith Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2001 which pertains to the Ahmednagar Municipal Council. 8. Return, if any, be filed by 25-2-2002. 9. Shri, E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader, has opposed the interlocutory order for holding the elections of Dhule Municipal Council, whose term, admittedly, expires on 15-3-2002. He has placed before us a copy of the Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2002 and also Writ Petition Nos. 358 and 359 of 2002 filed at Bombay in respect of Municipal Council at Meera Bhaiyander. 10. The State Election Commission has placed before us a draft programme proceed with the elections so as to have polling on 24-3-2002, counting and declaration of results on 25-3-2002. The Election Commission had earlier issued an order on 9-10-2001 for holding the elections to 30 Municipal Councils, whose term was to expire in February/March, 2002 and also declared the election programme for those Municipal Councils as mentioned in the list annexed to the said order. The process of election was to commence from 13-11-2001 by publication of draft delimitation order by the Collector and polling, was to take place on 20-1-2002. The process of election was to commence from 13-11-2001 by publication of draft delimitation order by the Collector and polling, was to take place on 20-1-2002. The counting and declaration of results was scheduled on the very next day. However, it appears that after the stage of final publication of Delimitation Order 28-11-2001 the election programme was stayed in view of the steps initiated by the State Government for conversion of Municipal Council, Dhule into Municipal Corporation. The State Government were through the said process and issued a final notification on 1-12-2001 which has been challenged in this writ petition alongwith other notifications issued by the State Government in this regard. 11. The process of conversion of the Municipal Councils into Corporations had commenced by the notification dated 16-10-2001. Same was the case in respect of Ahmednagar as well as Jalgaon Municipal Councils. Final notification dated 1-12-2001 came to be issued in respect of Ahmednagar Municipal Council for its conversion into Municipal Corporation and by a separate order of the same date the State Government had appointed as Administrator to take over the affairs of the said Municipal Council on expiry of the term of elected body. The said decision is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2001 which is scheduled to be heard finally on 27-2-2002. 12. We are directing the State to proceed with the elections of Municipal Council, Dhule during the pendency of this writ petition. We briefly state the reasons therefor as under: (a) In Writ Petition Nos. 4730, 4801 and 4830 of 2001, the proposal to convert Jalgaon Municipal Council into Municipal Corporation was challenged. By our judgment dated 10/11-12-2001 we have held that the Notifications/Proclamations dated 16th October, 2001 issued in exercise of powers conferred by the State Government under sub-section (2) read with sub-section (2-A) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, could not be issued on the basis of provisional figures of Census for the year 2001 as it violated the mandate of Article 243-U(1) and (3) of the Constitution of India. In addition, the notifications/proclamations issued under section 6 read with section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, on 16th October and 15th November, 2001, have been quashed and set aside by us in respect of Jalgaon Municipal Council. In addition, the notifications/proclamations issued under section 6 read with section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, on 16th October and 15th November, 2001, have been quashed and set aside by us in respect of Jalgaon Municipal Council. The very notifications/proclamations are under challenge in this petition as well as they are so in Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2001 in respect of Ahmednagar Municipal Council. (b) As a result of our judgment in the case of Jalgaon Municipal Council the elections proceeded further and newly elected body has assumed office. (c) We are informed that our judgment in the case of Jalgaon Municipal Council has been challenged before the Apex Court and notices have been issued but without any stay, on 8-2-2002. (d) In the case of Ahmednagar Municipal Council (Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2001) consequent to the judgment rendered by us in the case of Jalgaon Municipal Council, the elections were directed to be held on 15-12-2001 by our order dated 13-12-2001. This order came to be challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22441 of 2001 before the Apex Court. While staying the order passed by us on 15-12-2001, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court permitted the authorities to move us afresh to consider giving of fresh date for holding elections which would be more realistic and capable of being complied with, by order dated 14-12-2001. Accordingly, parties appeared before us. By our order dated 19-12-2001 the State Election Commission was directed to hold the elections on 13-1-2002 and the Administrator was to continue till the new body resumed office. In the meanwhile, the respondents were directed not to take further steps for formation of the Corporation pursuant to the notification dated 1-12-2001. The State Election Commission took appropriate steps and polling was held on 13-1-2002 and new body has assumed the office by taking over charge from the Administrator. The Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed on 11-12-2001 directing to hold elections on 13-1-2002 came to be finally disposed of by the Apex Court on 10-1-2002 without interfering with the election process. It would be relevant to reproduce the following observations made by the Apex Court in its order dated 10-1-2002: ""Mr. The Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed on 11-12-2001 directing to hold elections on 13-1-2002 came to be finally disposed of by the Apex Court on 10-1-2002 without interfering with the election process. It would be relevant to reproduce the following observations made by the Apex Court in its order dated 10-1-2002: ""Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, contends that once a Municipal Council is constituted then its duration should be five years in accordance with the constitutional provisions contained in Article 243-U and therefore, in the event of the writ application is dismissed and the State Government constitutes a Corporation, the Municipal Council will continue to function. This apprehension, in our considered opinion is misconceived, inasmuch as, under section 341 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, when the whole of the local area comprising a municipal area ceases to be a Municipal Area, with effect from the date on which such local area ceases to be a municipal area, the Council constituted for such municipal area shall cease to exist or function and the Councillors of the Council shall vacate office. Article 243-U of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The expression ""unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being"" would bring within its sweep the provisions of section 341 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1966 and therefore, the moment the Corporation is constituted in accordance with law, the elected Municipal Council would cease to function and so also the Councillors though elected will have to vacate the office. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court directing holding of election to the Municipal Council."" (e) There is no dispute that the tenure of the present Municipal Council, Dhule expires on 15-3-2002. As per the constitutional mandate the newly elected body ought to assume office from 16-3-2002. Even in the case of Ahmednagar Municipal Council its tenure was to expire on 17-12-2001 but due to pendency of petition and the relevant reasons elections could be held only on 13-1-2002. As per the constitutional mandate the newly elected body ought to assume office from 16-3-2002. Even in the case of Ahmednagar Municipal Council its tenure was to expire on 17-12-2001 but due to pendency of petition and the relevant reasons elections could be held only on 13-1-2002. There were reasons beyond the control of the State Election Commission and therefore, in such exceptional circumstances it was permissible for the Election Commission to hold the elections even after expiry of tenure of existing Council. The case at hand is similar to that of the Ahmednagar Municipal Council. In any case, as per the draft election programme produced before us by the State Election Commission, the new body is scheduled to assume office before 31-3-2002 instead of 16-3-2002. (f) The Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2002 does not affect the lis in the Dhule Municipal Council. 13. We, therefore, direct the State Election Commission to proceed with the election programme of Dhule Municipal Council as per the draft placed before us and in continuation of its earlier order dated 9-10-2001. Fresh order on the lines of the draft election programme placed before us shall be issued without any further delay. The Administrator shall take over the affairs of the Municipal Council, Dhule on 16-3-2002 and shall continue in office till the newly elected body assumes office. The notification dated 1st December, 2001, converting the Dhule Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation is hereby stayed until the final disposal of this petition. 14. Registry to supply ordinary authenticated copy to the respective parties, if applied for."" 16. The petition as originally filed had 18 prayers challenging the proclamation notifications dated 16th October, 2001, 15-11-2001, 1-12-2001. The petitioners amended their petitions as per the leave granted by this Court on 14-2-2002 by adding paragraphs 16-A, 17-A, 19-A, 19-B, 19-C, 44-A, 44-B, 44-C, 44-D, 44-E and prayer Clauses AA, AB, NA, NB, NC, ND. The petitioners have impugned the constitutional validity of Act No. 8/2002 by way of the amended petitions. 17. This Court on 5-2-2002 directed that this writ petition be heard alongwith W.P. No. 4753/2001 as identical issues are involved. This Court has fixed both the writ petitions for final hearing on 14-2-2002 but for the reasons stated while narrating the facts of Jalgaon petition, this petition could not be heard. Ultimately these petitions were placed before us. 17. This Court on 5-2-2002 directed that this writ petition be heard alongwith W.P. No. 4753/2001 as identical issues are involved. This Court has fixed both the writ petitions for final hearing on 14-2-2002 but for the reasons stated while narrating the facts of Jalgaon petition, this petition could not be heard. Ultimately these petitions were placed before us. The common affidavit-in-reply is filed in these petitions which we have commented upon while narrating the facts stated in Ahmednagar petition:-- 18. Now we will record the submissions of the respective Advocates. Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Advocate instructed by Shri N.V. Gaware, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4753 raised the following contentions in support of the petition. 1) Shri Dhorde contended that in issuing the impugned notifications the Government has exercised its power arbitrarily and mala fidely without any reason. 2) The learned Counsel contended that the notification that is issued on the basis of provisional population figure. The Government has taken into consideration the provisional population figure of census of 2001 as the basis for exercising the power to issue the said notification. Learned Advocate contended that final figure of census 2001 is yet to be declared and that provisional figure cannot form the basis to convert the smaller urban area into larger urban area. 3) Learned Advocate contended that the population for the purpose of exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 3 of 1949 Act means the relevant figure of the population that has been published as per the census of 1991. Learned Advocate submitted that no such figure has been published as required, he brought to our notice the certificate issued by the Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municipal Council on 19th October, 2001. It is submitted that according to the census of 1991 the population of Ahmednagar city was only 1,83,339. Shri Dhorde, therefore, submitted that the Bench mark of three lacks which is a pre-requisite of issuing the notification under sub-section (2) of section 3 of 1949 Act, is not yet reached, therefore, issuance of notification converting the Ahmednagar Municipal Council smaller urban area into Ahmednagar Corporation larger urban area is without any real foundation. Shri Dhorde, therefore, submitted that the Bench mark of three lacks which is a pre-requisite of issuing the notification under sub-section (2) of section 3 of 1949 Act, is not yet reached, therefore, issuance of notification converting the Ahmednagar Municipal Council smaller urban area into Ahmednagar Corporation larger urban area is without any real foundation. He brought to our notice the publication of census of India displayed on internet by the Director of Census Operation, Maharashtra, to show that the provisional data following a census will be available within one month after the census and the final data within 36 to 40 months. On the basis of the publication on internet, it is submitted that the figure of 3,07,000 as stated in the notification is illusory and not real. Shri Dhorde, therefore, contended that as the basic requirement of population has not crossed the Bench mark of three lacs, hence the entire action of the Government is vitiated. 4) It is submitted that even assuming that the Ahmednagar smaller urban area which is referred to in the notification dated 16th October, 2001 which includes the village Burhan and Nagardovale. Shri Dhorde, submitted that the existing Ahmednagar smaller urban area as notified in the year 1999 includes village Kedgaon. The Government has proposed to delete Kedgaon from Ahmednagar Municipal area which was indicated in the proclamation dated 24-4-2001. He contended that if Kedgaon is deleted as per the proclamation dated 24-4-2001 and as such the Bench mark of three lacs will not reach. Shri Dhorde, therefore, submitted that the figure of population referred to in notification dated 16th October, 2001 cannot be accepted as real one. At this stage, we may refer and dispose of the plea regarding deletion of Kedgaon from Ahmednagar Municipal area as the Government of Maharashtra on 12th October, 2001 has cancelled the proclamation issued on 24-4-2001. Therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate that population of Kedgaon is to be ignored cannot be accepted as is unsubstantiated on facts of the case. Therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate that population of Kedgaon is to be ignored cannot be accepted as is unsubstantiated on facts of the case. 5) It is submitted that while converting or upgrading the smaller urban area into a larger urban area it is not only the population that has to be taken into consideration but also the other factors as mentioned in Article 243-Q sub-article (2) i.e. the density of the population, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors has to be taken into consideration. He therefore, submitted that attempt has been made by the Government to issue the notification only on the basis of population figure that too on relying the provisional figure. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the Government runs contrary to the constitutional mandate. 6) The amendment made to the principal Act of 1949 by Act No. 8/2002 is unconstitutional and it runs contrary to the definition of population as referred to in Article 243-P(g). It is submitted that by amending Act No. 8/2002 the State Legislation has virtually amended the definition of population as defined to under Article 243-P(g). It is submitted that by virtue of Article 243-ZF, if the State Legislature did not amend the existing law relating Municipalities within a specified time that act will automatically stand repealed. It is therefore, submitted that introduction of explanation to section 5 by Act No. 8/2002 thus beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature. 7) It is submitted that issuance of Ordinance by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution of India is a colourable exercise of power as by the said ordinance which was subsequently converted into Act, the reducing time to receive objections from 60 days to 30 days was curtailed which is illegal as it has taken away the right which was existing in the residents of Ahmednagar. He submitted that when the initial notification was issued the period of 60 days was provided to raise objections but that period was curtailed by the ordinance and it was brought down to 30 days. Therefore, it is contended that the ordinance so issued and the Act converting the said ordinance subsequently, runs contrary to the constitutional mandate. He submitted that when the initial notification was issued the period of 60 days was provided to raise objections but that period was curtailed by the ordinance and it was brought down to 30 days. Therefore, it is contended that the ordinance so issued and the Act converting the said ordinance subsequently, runs contrary to the constitutional mandate. So far as this objection of the learned Counsel is concerned, we will dispose of the same at this stage. The petitioners have impugned the said ordinance imputing the motive, colourable exercise of power and is mala fide one. We cannot accept this contention because proclamation of ordinance is a legislative power of the Governor and which cannot be impugned or questioned on the ground of mala fide exercise of power. We reject the said contention. Moreover, the question of curtailment of the period by the said ordinance and the Act No. 8/2002 directly fell for consideration of the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council's case and in view of that decision we need not ponder over the issue about the curtailment of the period of receiving and considering objections and/or the legislative competence as this contention runs contrary to the law declared by Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, we will refer to the said judgment and the observation of the Apex Court when we test the contention of the learned Advocate in detail. 8) Shri Dhorde, further contended that while converting a rural area into a smaller urban area under 1965 Act, it is necessary for the State Government to make an enquiry to the factors stated in section 3 of Act of 1965 and after the Government is satisfied that the population of such area is not less than 25 thousand and (b) the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities in such area is not less than 35%. It is contended that this is for specification of rural areas into smaller urban area. When the State desires to covert that smaller urban area into a larger urban area due consideration has to be given to the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities as referred to in section 3 of 1965 Act. It is contended that this is for specification of rural areas into smaller urban area. When the State desires to covert that smaller urban area into a larger urban area due consideration has to be given to the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities as referred to in section 3 of 1965 Act. With the backdrop of provision of section 3 of 1965 Act in the present case, all these requirements and in particular the various factors stated in Article 243-Q(2) has been given go-bye and decision is only taken on the basis of population and that too provisional figure of 2001 census. 9) The learned Counsel further submitted that though the objections were raised after the proclamation but after receipt of the objections, no personal hearing was given to any of the objectors therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the final notification which has been issued is in contravention of principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram portem and on this ground alone the entire action has to be declared illegal. 10) It is submitted regarding the observation made by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case that the figure of population which is borne by record in that case was not disputed by anyone and as no dispute was raised, the Apex Court proceeded on the basis of that the population of Jalgaon crossed the benchmark of three lacs. The learned Counsel contends that in this petition the petitioners are disputing the figure of population, he therefore, contended that for the purpose of this petition this Court has to find out the question whether the population of Ahmednagar smaller urban area crossed 3 lacs. He submitted that the petitioners have demonstrated, a) census figure of 2001 is not yet finally declared; b) village Kedgaon cannot form part of 'city' as referred to in the final notification; c) The certificate issued by Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municipal Council shows the population figure published as per 1991 census, which is undisputedly below the bench mark of 3 lakhs; d) The information available as regards to final figure of 2001 census on internet shows that final figure is not yet declared. Therefore, it is contended that so far as the answer given by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case to question No. 2 need not be applied in the present case. Therefore, it is contended that so far as the answer given by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case to question No. 2 need not be applied in the present case. The learned Advocate stressed that as no final population is declared as yet and for that purpose as per definition of population as referred to in Article 243-P(g) read with Article 243-Q sub-article (2) the provisional figure cannot be accepted for issuance of notification as final figure. Shri, Dhorde, therefore, submitted that the entire action of issuance of the impugned notification is thus trained with mala fides. We dispose of these contentions of mala fides at this stage itself as the petitioners have not explained as whose mala fides and at whose instance the said notification is issued. It is very easy to raise the contention of mala fides, colourable exercise of power and arbitrary exercise of power but it is very difficult to substantiate or prove those contentions. As no details have been produced before us by the petitioners to demonstrate that the impugned notification relating to Ahmednagar smaller urban area has been issued either with mala fide intention or in colourable exercise of power. For want of details we will not consider this contention on the line of submission that is advanced by the learned Advocate but will confine only to find out whether the bench mark of three lacs as required by the statute has reached or not, and, whether there was sufficient material before the Government while exercising the powers to issue notification. 19. The submission made by Shri Dhorde, relating to the observations made by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case in respect of provisional figure of population are difficult to accept. We may refer to the documents which were produced before us in this writ petition. Useful reference can be made to the notifications dated 16th October, 2001, which we have reproduced earlier in detail. The notification clearly mentions that the total population of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation comprising Ahmednagar smaller urban area District Ahmednagar is according to provisional figure of census for the year 2001 is 3,07,455. It is to be accepted that village Kedgaon is part and parcel of the Ahmednagar smaller urban area as declared in the year 1999. The petitioners have produced a copy of census of India 2001 at Exh. It is to be accepted that village Kedgaon is part and parcel of the Ahmednagar smaller urban area as declared in the year 1999. The petitioners have produced a copy of census of India 2001 at Exh. Z-2, wherein the Ahmednagar District population has been shown. There we find that for Ahmednagar urban area the population is shown as 3,49,339. Ahmednagar is divided in two parts, one is Ahmednagar Municipal Council area and another Ahmednagar Cantonment Board. The figure indicates that Ahmednagar Municipal Council urban area the total population mentioned is 3,07,455, this obviously includes the population of Kedgaon. The petitioner wants to impress upon us on the certificate dated 26-7-2002 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar to dispute the figure mentioned in Exh. Z-2, wherein population as per census 1991 has been disclosed is in respect of Ahmednagar city and Kedgaon. Though this certificate is issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, that cannot be accepted as a final statement because the provisional figure which was considered by the Government for issuing notification is the figure as quoted in census of India 2001 series 21, Maharashtra Provisional population total, as such the certificate of the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar is of no assistance to the petitioners. 10. The learned Counsel has submitted before us that the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Ordinance dated 7-9-2001 and the said ordinance has been converted into Act being Act No. 8/2002, the petitioners are challenging the validity of the said Act on the ground which the validity of ordinance is challenged. The challenges to the ordinance have been stated by the petitioners in para No. 11-A to 11-E of the petition. It is contended by learned Advocate that the Act No. 8/2002 is in contravention of the letter and spirit of Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India and in particular Article 243-Q. Though, the petitioners have raised the contentions attributing malice to the Government regarding postponement of election as the elections have already held, we will not consider this aspect any more. The contention in respect of the curtailment of period from 60 to 30 days also cannot be gone into in this petition as the issue is concluded by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. 11. The contention in respect of the curtailment of period from 60 to 30 days also cannot be gone into in this petition as the issue is concluded by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. 11. The learned Counsel submitted that on formation of the Corporation the wards are to be divided as per the provisions of Act of 1949, reservation as contained in Article 243-T has also to be provided for. Shri Dhorde, submitted that the post of a Mayor is also required to be reserved by roster and the post of Mayor is to be reserved for the weaker section/women candidates etc. has already been fixed and if now the Corporation is formed, it is possible that there will not be any reservation to the post of Mayor. 12. It is further submitted that the notification has been issued arbitrarily and without application of mind but it is issued to advert the political purpose as well as to disown the responsibility of welfare State without considering provisions of Article 243-T. 13. It is submitted that if the Corporation is constituted, it will affect the right of the petitioner to carry on their business and it will adversely hamper right to life as the earning of the petitioners will virtually come down which will result in violating guarantee given to Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. Lastly it is contended that the consultation with existing Ahmednagar Municipal Council is not done and for want of consultation with the Council the entire action of the Government stands vitiated. 20. We may now refer to the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Shri Shah, who has not seriously disputed the question of population so far as Dhule city is concerned. (A) Shri Shah, submitted that the entire action of the Government of converting the Dhule smaller urban area into Dhule larger urban area is politically motivated. (B) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that when elections to the Municipal Council were due, the Government tried to postpone the election by issuing directions to the Election Commission. When the Election Commission declared elections, the Government approached this Court by filing a writ petition with intention to stall election and proceeded to go ahead with formation of Dhule Municipal Corporation but the Government could not succeed. When the Election Commission declared elections, the Government approached this Court by filing a writ petition with intention to stall election and proceeded to go ahead with formation of Dhule Municipal Corporation but the Government could not succeed. The Government did not stop here, the Government approached the Apex Court against the order passed by this Court for not staying the elections. This shows the anxiety of the Government that by any method the election should not be held and the object of conversion of the smaller urban area into larger urban area of Dhule could be fulfilled. (C) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that pursuant to the notification issued on 16th October, 2001, Grahak Panchayat, Dhule and several organisations working at Dhule have submitted their objections raising specific points objecting the formation of Dhule Municipal Corporation. These objections were admittedly received by the Collector and after receipt of the said objections hearing was fixed on 23-11-2001 in the Chamber of Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 23-11-2001 at Mumbai. This was intimated to the objectors by the Collector by his letter dated 20-11-2001. On 22-11-2001 an application was submitted to the Hon'ble Minister with a request for extension of time and postponement. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that on 23-11-2001 an application was submitted to the Hon'ble Minister expressing the difficulties of the residents of Dhule that the time fixed for hearing is very short and it is not possible for the residents of Dhule to come to Mumbai to attend hearing which will require everyone to spent Rs. 500/- or more, therefore, it was requested to conduct a hearing at Dhule proper. It is therefore, submitted that the time which was given for hearing after notice was of only two days and in fact, no personal hearing was given to the objectors. Therefore, it is contended that thus the action is taken in violation of principles of natural justice. (D) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the question of curtailment of period for lodging objections for 60 to 30 days has been accepted as valid by the Apex Court but still it was necessary for the Government of Maharashtra to give proper and fair hearing to the objectors. From the record it is clear that Collector intimated the objectors by the letter dated 21-11-2001 that hearing will take place on 23-11-2001. From the record it is clear that Collector intimated the objectors by the letter dated 21-11-2001 that hearing will take place on 23-11-2001. Therefore, he submitted that giving of two days time for hearing to the objectors is nothing but illusory and not real. (E) It is submitted that the action of issuance of final notification is against the principles of natural justice and also against the law declared by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council's case (supra). It is then submitted that the issuance of notification converting the smaller urban area into larger urban area the Government has not considered all the ingredients as contained in Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. (F) Shri Shah, the learned Senior Advocate and Shri Dhorde, have submitted that the action of formation of Corporation under the provisions of 1949 Act is a mala fide action of the Government which has been taken without taking into confidence the residents of Dhule and Ahmednagar. (G) Shri Shah, contended that notification which is published under section 6 of 1949 Act and section 3 of 1965 Act is not published in the manner provided under the said provisions of the Act. It is contended that sub-section (3) of section 3 requires that a notice is to be published in the Official Gazette in local newspaper and proclamation by affixing the said notice in conspicuous place in Marathi in Dhule city. It is submitted that requirement of publication in the Official Gazette has been completed but he submitted that after curtailment of the period of submitting the objections from 60 days to 30 days is affected that fact has not been brought to the notice of the general public by issuing fresh notification. (H) Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate contended that there is no consultation with the Municipal Council. Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate's challenges to the action of the Government are broadly based on two aspects; (i) no consultation with the Municipal Council, Dhule; (ii) non-compliance/satisfaction of the Governor/Government regarding all factors mentioned under Article 243-Q(2). Shri Shah, submitted that the action of the Government therefore, required to be quashed and set aside on above said two grounds. 21. Shri Shah, submitted that the action of the Government therefore, required to be quashed and set aside on above said two grounds. 21. Before we advert to the contentions of learned Advocate General Shri Gulam Vahanwatti, and R.B. Raghuwanshi, learned Advocate appearing as Special Counsel for the respondent will dispose of the application filed by the intervener to intervene in the matter. Shri Bopshetty, learned Advocate has contended that the intervener is the elected member of the Municipal Council, Dhule and he is very much interested to see that the interest of the general public at Dhule is protected. He contended that action of issuing notification to convert smaller urban area into larger urban area violates Article 14 as the other cities in Maharashtra which have crossed the bench mark of three lacs have not been converted into larger urban area. We would have considered this objection of the intervener if the intervener would have raised objection immediately after notification was published. Shri Bopshetty, learned Advocate has fairly stated that the intervener has not filed any objection or suggestion to the proclamation and notification published on 16th October, 2001. As the intervener has not raised any objection and lodged any protest before the Collector, we feel unsafe to allow the intervention. The Apex Court which heard the Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court, refusing to stay election, has considered the rights of the existing Council, Councillors. We have referred to these observations in para 8 of this Judgment (ibid). As such we see no reason to entertain the application of the intervention, who is elected member of Municipal Council, Dhule. We reject the application. 22. Shri Gulam Vahanwatti, learned Advocate General has submitted before us that the constitutional validity of the Act cannot be judged on the submissions which are made before this Court as the petitioners have not demonstrated as to how the ordinances and/or Act No. 8/2002 violates any of the constitutional mandate. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in respect of local self-Government as it falls in List 2 of Schedule VII, Entry No. 5 and the State Legislature has the competence to pass a law. The learned Advocate General submitted that by amending section 5 of the Act of 1949 the definition of population has not been changed as alleged by the petitioner. The learned Advocate General submitted that by amending section 5 of the Act of 1949 the definition of population has not been changed as alleged by the petitioner. The learned Advocate General submitted that according to section 3 sub-section (2) if a particular smaller urban area crosses the bench mark of three lacs then the State Government gets a jurisdiction to exercise its authority to convert the smaller urban area into a larger urban area. The learned Advocate General stated that first and foremost requirement of conversion of a smaller urban area to a larger urban area is the population and that base is taken into consideration having regard to the other factors referred to under Article 243-Q sub-article (2). The learned Advocate General therefore, submitted that as per the mandate of the constitution referred to under Part IX A of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has amended the existing law regarding Municipalities and amended the Act which is within competence of State Legislature. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the question of mala fides etc. as contended by the petitioners cannot be attributed to the legislature and the legislation cannot be impugned on such contention. Therefore, the Advocate General contended that the State Legislature was competent to enact and amend the Corporation Act by Act No. 8/2002. The learned Advocate General has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, wherein the Apex Court has accepted the validity of the ordinance which was subsequently converted into Act. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the question of constitutional validity cannot be considered in these writ petitions. Shri Gulam Vahanwatti, learned Advocate General has stated that the constitutional validity to the Act has only to be judged on the ground (i) whether it violates any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; (ii) whether the State Legislature lacks the legislative competence. In the present case both the aspects are absent and therefore, this Court cannot entertain the objections and challenges raised by the petitioners regarding the validity of the Act. The learned Advocate General contended that the population is the base to determining whether the smaller urban area can be converted into larger urban area under section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act. Section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act is a pointer for this purpose. The learned Advocate General contended that the population is the base to determining whether the smaller urban area can be converted into larger urban area under section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act. Section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act is a pointer for this purpose. He submitted that regards has to be given to the factors referred to under Article 243-Q(2) while exercising that power. The learned Advocate General contended that if the bench mark of 3 lacs population is crossed, then as per the provisions of section 3 of sub-section (3) of 1949 Act and as per the mandate of Article 243-Q(2) the Government has to exercise the authority having due regard to the other factors. The Advocate General further submitted that exercise of power under section 3 being legislative function, requirements of principles of natural justice are not attracted. The Advocate General submitted that all the issues raised in this petition are squarely covered by the Apex Court judgment in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. Coming to the submissions of the learned Advocate Shri Rajendra Raghuwanshi, who has submitted before us that the hearing was given to the objectors. He brought to our notice the following statements made in the affidavit-in-reply. ""I further submit that in case of Dhule town, 33 objections were received by the Government but only two persons remained present at the time of actual hearing. I say that on behalf of the Municipal Council Chief Officer of the Municipal Council was present on the date of hearing. I say that the President of the Municipal Council was also called upon but he remained absent. I say that the Municipal Council neither supported nor opposed the formation of the Municipal Corporation. I say that after hearing and effective consultation, the decision was taken."" He further submitted that the issuance of notification is legislative function of the Government and the notification has been issued after due consideration of the factors mentioned under Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India. He brought to our notice the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply in para 22. Shri Raghuwanshi, further submitted that as a matter of fact, the notification has been published in the daily newspaper ""Loksatta"" dated 24th October, 2001 and ""Lokmat Times"" dated 21-11-2001. He has also invited our attention that the curtailment of period is also published in the above said newspapers. Shri Raghuwanshi, further submitted that as a matter of fact, the notification has been published in the daily newspaper ""Loksatta"" dated 24th October, 2001 and ""Lokmat Times"" dated 21-11-2001. He has also invited our attention that the curtailment of period is also published in the above said newspapers. Though there is no statement in the affidavit regarding publication of this notification the learned Special Counsel has produced before us the notification published so far it relates to Ahmednagar Municipal Council. The notification of reducing the period is published in 'Lokmat' dated 20-11-2001. It must be stated that the facts must have been stated in the affidavit which is duly sworn by the Deputy Secretary, but the same has not been done. Shri Raghuwanshi, has produced before us the entire record pertaining to the conversion of smaller urban area of Dhule and Ahmednagar into larger urban area. The record does indicate that relevant material and data was before the Government of Maharashtra. We also noticed population data of Census of India, 2001. Similarly the original file which was produced before us indicate that the factors referred to under Article 243-Q were borne in mind and the record and data was in fact before the Government. From the record produced before us it is clear that from Ahmednagar 69 objections were received, all objections were identical. The record indicates that each and every objection received from Ahmednagar was analysed and comments of the Collector on those objections were also noted and with this date the Government has considered to convert Municipal Council, Ahmednagar into Corporation Ahmednagar. The record also indicates of the factors referred to under Article 243-Q(2) which are as A) The population for Ahmednagar as per the provisional figure 2001 is shown as 3,07,455, area 84 sq.k.m. density of population 3660, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities 94%, total income for 2001 :36,73,60,928/-. B) So far as Dhule is concerned the record indicates the population as per the provisional figure of 2001 census 3,41,473, area 46.46 sq.k.m., density of population 7,350, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities 98%, financial position for the year 2001 : 22,46,98,300/-. From the record it is clear that before issuing the notification due regard is shown to all the factors/components of Article 243-Q sub-article (2). From the record it is clear that before issuing the notification due regard is shown to all the factors/components of Article 243-Q sub-article (2). On the basis of the record, the learned Counsel has submitted that even the notification issued makes reference that the decision has been taken to convert smaller urban area of Ahmednagar and Dhule into larger urban area due regard has been shown to the factors mentioned under Article 243-Q sub-article (2). It was also submitted by learned Special Counsel that the process of formation of Corporation being legislative function, and principles of natural justice are not necessary to be followed. He also submitted that while establishing the Corporation the care is taken to continue finance grants to both would be Corporations as 100% for first two years, 66.75% for next two years, and 33.33% for the 5th year. Therefore, he submitted that the Government has taken due care to see that the Corporation will not suffer financially at their inception. 23. Shri Raghuwanshi, further submitted that all the objectors from Ahmednagar and Dhule were noticed and they were invited for the hearing before the Hon'ble Minister on 23-11-2001 but except two persons from Dhule, no one remained present at the time of hearing. He submitted that in fact, no regular hearing is required but as the notices were given, objections were received, bearing was fixed but for the reasons best known to the objectors they did not remain present except two objectors from Dhule and they only submitted an application for adjournment. Therefore, he submitted that the principles of natural justice are duly complied with. Though this submission be correct so far as Dhule is concerned, but the record of Ahmednagar is not clear and whether notice is given to all the objectors from Ahmednagar. The public notice on record indicates that so far Ahmednagar is concerned but no record of publication for Dhule is brought to our notice by the learned Special Counsel. 24. Having noticed the above said contentions alongwith the points taken in both the petitions and reply following points arise for our consideration : (i) Whether Act No. 8/2002 passed by the Maharashtra Legislature is ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution and in particular Part IXA of the Constitution with relation to the adding of explanation to section 5 of 1949 Act; ............. No. (ii) Whether the challenges to the validity of the Act No. 8/2002 can be entertained and judged on the averments made in the petition; ........... No. (iii) Whether fair and sufficient opportunity is given to the objectors; ..... Yes. (iv) Whether the issuance of notification under section 3 of 1949 Act is tainted with mala fides or is bad for non-following of principles of natural justice; ........... No. (v) Whether before taking action under section 6 of 1965 Act, the Municipal Councils namely Ahmednagar and Dhule Municipal Councils were consulted. ........ Not consulted. 25. We will now answer the above said questions but before answering those questions it will be appropriate at this stage to refer in detail the statutory and constitutional provisions dealing with the questions raised in these petitions. ""243-P. Definitions.— (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 243-Q; (g) ""Population"" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. 243-Q. Constitution of Municipalities.—(1) There shall be constituted in every State-- (a) A Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area; b) A Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and c) A Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. in accordance with the provisions of this part: Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by public notification, specify to be an industrial township. (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. 243-T. Reservation of seats.—(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under Clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. 243-ZF. Continuance of existing laws and Municipalities.—Notwithstanding anything in this part, any provision of any law relating to Municipalities in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier. Provided that all the Municipalities existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State."" The Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965 ""2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-- xxx xxx xxx xxx (24) ""Municipal area"" means the territorial area of a Council or a Nagar Panchayat. 3. Specification of areas as smaller urban areas. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-- xxx xxx xxx xxx (24) ""Municipal area"" means the territorial area of a Council or a Nagar Panchayat. 3. Specification of areas as smaller urban areas. (1) A Council for every municipal area existing on the date of coming into force of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils (Amendment) Act, 1994 specified as a smaller urban area in a notification issued under Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India in respect thereof, shall be deemed to be a duly constituted Municipal Council known by the name ....... Municipal Council. (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the State Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, any local area as a smaller urban area : Provided that no such area shall be so specified as a smaller urban area unless the State Government, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, is satisfied that-- (a) the population of such area is not less than 25,000, and (b) the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities in such area is not less than thirty five per cent. (2-A) For every smaller urban area so specified by the State Government under sub-section (2), there shall be constituted a Municipal Council known by the name ........ Municipal Council; (3) Before the publication of a notification under sub-section (2), the State Government shall cause to be published in the Official Gazette, and also in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to be specified in the notification, a proclamation announcing the intention of Government to issue such notification and inviting all persons who entertain any objection to the said proposal to submit the same in writing with the reason therefor to the Collector of the District within two months from the date of the publication of the proclamation in the Official Gazette. Copies of the proclamation in Marathi shall also be posted in conspicuous places in the area proposed to be declared as a municipal area. (4) The Collector shall, with all reasonable dispatch, forward any objection so submitted to the State Government. (5) No such notification as aforesaid shall be issued by the State Government unless the objections, if any, so submitted are in its opinion insufficient or invalid. 6. (4) The Collector shall, with all reasonable dispatch, forward any objection so submitted to the State Government. (5) No such notification as aforesaid shall be issued by the State Government unless the objections, if any, so submitted are in its opinion insufficient or invalid. 6. Alteration of the limits of a municipal area. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette (a) alter the limits of a municipal area so as to include therein or to exclude therefrom such local area as may be specified in the notification; (b) amalgamate two or more municipal areas so as to form one municipal area; (c) split up any municipal area into two or more municipal areas; (d) declare that the whole of any local area comprising a municipal area shall cease to be a municipal area; Provided that, no such notification shall be issued by the State Government under any of the clauses of this sub-section without consulting the Municipal Council or Councils and other local authorities concerned. (2) Prior to the publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 3 shall mutatis mutandis be followed."" Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. (2) Prior to the publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 3 shall mutatis mutandis be followed."" Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. Specification of larger urban areas and Constitution of Corporations.— (1) The Corporation for every city constituted under this Act existing on the date of coming into force of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils (Amendment) Act, 1994 specified as a larger urban area in the notification issued in respect thereof under Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, shall be deemed to be a duly constituted Municipal Corporation for the larger urban area so specified forming a city known by the name ""The Municipal Corporation of the City of......"" (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the State Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, specify by notification in the Official Gazette, any urban area with a population of not less than three lakhs as a larger urban area; (2-A) Every larger urban area so specified by the State Government under sub-section (2) shall from a city and there shall be a Municipal Corporation for such larger urban area known by the name of the Municipal Corporation of the City of........"" (3)(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the State Government may also from time to time after consultation with the Corporation by notification in the Official Gazette, alter the limits specified for any larger urban area under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) so as to include therein, or to exclude therefrom, such area as is specified in the notification. (b) Where any area is included within the limits of the larger urban area under Clause (a), any appointments, notifications, notices, taxes, orders, schemes, licences, permissions, rules, bye-laws or forms made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act or any other law, which are for the time being in force in the larger urban area shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but save as otherwise provided in section 129-A or any other provision of this Act, apply to and be in force in the additional area also from the date that area is included in the city. (4) The power to issue a notification under this section shall be subject to the condition of previous publication. 5. Constitution of Corporation.— (1) Every Corporation shall, by the name of ""The Municipal Corporation of the City of......."", be a body corporate and have perpetual succession and a common seal and by such name may sue and be sued. (2) Each Corporation shall consist of - (a) such number of Councillors, elected directly at ward elections, as is specified in the table below :- TABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population Number of Councillors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) Above 3 lakhs and upto The minimum number of elected 6 lakhs Councillors shall be 65. For every additional population of 15,000 above 3 lakhs, one additional Councillor shall be provided, so how- ever that the maximum number of elected Councillors shall not exceed 85. (Rest not material for our purpose.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) such number of nominated Councillors not exceeding five, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed : (3) The State Election Commission shall, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each city the number and boundaries of the wards into which such city shall be divided for the purpose of the ward election of Councillors so that, (as far as practicable, all wards shall be compact areas and the number of persons in each ward according to the latest census figures shall approximately be the same. Each of the wards shall elect only one Councillor;) bracketed portion deleted by section 5 of Act No. VIII of 2002 and substituted by ""each ward shall elect not less than three and not more than five Councillors. Each of the wards shall elect only one Councillor;) bracketed portion deleted by section 5 of Act No. VIII of 2002 and substituted by ""each ward shall elect not less than three and not more than five Councillors. In all wards, as far as practicable the number of persons per seat according to the latest census shall approximately be the same."" (As per the amendment that is introduced by section 5 of Act No. 8/2002 following explanation came to be added) : ""Explanation.—For the purposes of this Act, the expression ""latest census figures"" obtaining in sub-section (3), shall mean, (a) the figures of the latest census finally published and pending publication of final figures of the latest census shall mean the provisional figures published of such census; and (b) where the relevant final or provisional figures of the latest census are not available, the final relevant figures of the census immediately preceding the latest census."" It is not disputed before us that Act No. VIII of 2002 replaces the following ordinances promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra, under Article 213 of the Constitution of India being (i) Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 on 7th September, 2002. (ii) The Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 on 20th October, 2001. (iii) The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Ordinance) and Temporary Provisions for Conduct of Elections of Municipal Corporations Ordinance, 2001 on 7th November, 2001 and (iv) The Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (2nd Amendment) Ordinance, 2001....... specifically with effect from 16th October and 15th November, 2001. 26. After noticing the constitutional and statutory provisions now we will proceed to find out how far the controversy and the points that are raised in the petition have been covered by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. Question No. 1 as framed by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case is not agitated before us. Much has been debated before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Ahmednagar Municipal Council case, whether the provisional figures of census published and available to the Government can be basis to issue the notification. In our considered view the question which is agitated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is squarely answered by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. In our considered view the question which is agitated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is squarely answered by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. The Apex Court has framed question No. 2 and in answer to that question the Apex Court has observed thus : ""26. We see no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners respondents that the figures of census published on 13-8-2001 by the Director of Census Operation, Maharashtra were only provisional and could not have been acted upon unless the final population totals were published decision of constituting a Municipal Corporation so as to replace a Municipal Council is dependent on the figure of population of the urban area. Neither the Constitution nor any other relevant provision of any statute prescribes or defines the source or material wherefrom the State Government shall from an opinion as to the population existing in any urban area. The only requirement is of the population crossing the bench mark of three lakhs. The correctness of the figure of population in Jalgaon urban area having reached the figure of 3,68,579 as on 13-8-2001 as published by the Director of Census Operation, Maharashtra in the document 'Divisional Population Totals' is not disputed by anyone. So long as the correctness of the fact that the population has crossed the bench mark of three lakhs and thereby provided the requisite foundation for the State Government to take a decision of constitution a Municipal Corporation by treating Jalgaon as a larger urban area cannot be disputed much less doubted. So also no Act, Rule or any instruction issued by the Government of India or any competent authority has been brought to our notice which contemplates a 'Final Population Total' being published after the publication of the so called provisional list. So also no Act, Rule or any instruction issued by the Government of India or any competent authority has been brought to our notice which contemplates a 'Final Population Total' being published after the publication of the so called provisional list. The submission that the State Government should have awaited the publication of a 'Final Population Totals' and should not have acted on provisional totals is wholly devoid of any merit and the High Court should not have upheld the submission to find fault with the decision of the State Government."" Shri Dhorde, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has tried to contend that the Apex Court answering the question No. 2 has proceeded on the basis that the figure of population of Jalgaon urban area was not disputed by anyone and in Ahmednagar case the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners have in fact, disputed the figure as relied on by the Government in issuing notification under section 3. We will deal with this submission of learned Counsel little later but at this juncture we will dispose of the other contentions regarding reduction of the period from 60 to 30 days. The Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council was dealing with this specific question i.e. question No. 3 while considering the validity of the ordinance. The Apex Court in para No. 27 has answered that question thus : ""28. The finding as to violation of principles of natural justice arrived at by the High Court is founded on two bases : (i) the time of 60 days originally appointed for preferring the objections could not have been curtailed; (ii) looking at the drastic consequences involved on the population of the urban area, by converting the Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation, the effective opportunity for preferring objections having been made available only for two days i.e. between 19th and 21st November, 2001 was in fact no opportunity in the eye of law. The submission on which these findings are based appears to be attractive but on a little probe and tested in the correct perspective the fallacy in the submission is exposed. 29. The submission on which these findings are based appears to be attractive but on a little probe and tested in the correct perspective the fallacy in the submission is exposed. 29. The requirement of inviting all persons who entertained any objection to the proposal of a municipal area ceasing to be so and being classified as a larger urban area to be administered by a Municipal Corporation as required by sub-section (3) of section 3 read with section 6 of the MRMC Act has to be complied with for two reasons : firstly, it is recognition by statute of the principles of natural justice and, secondly, it is mandatory procedural requirement which must be satisfied as a pre-condition for the validity of subsequent final decision on the principle that if the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then it shall be done either in that manner or not at all."" 34. The date on which the subsequent notification dated 15-11-2001 was published in the Government Gazette and on 19-11-2001 when the same was published in local newspaper, a period of 30 days or more than 30 days had already elapsed and still some time i.e., a period of 6 days by reference to Gazette publication dated 15-11-2001 and two days by reference to newspaper publication dated 21-11-2001 was still available for preferring objections. Let a totality of the situation be assessed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Municipal Council, representative of the entire population of Jalgaon Municipal area had collected and consciously discussed the likely objections against the proposal and forwarded the same for the consideration of the State Government. In addition, 239 objections had already been preferred and reached the State Government. There is no grievance raised before the High Court by anyone that there is yet another objection to the proposal which could have been raised but could not be raised on account of curtailment in the period inviting objections. Not one person has come forward to say that he proposed to prefer an objection but was denied the opportunity of preferring objection on account of the period having been abruptly curtailed. There is not one objection which may not have received consideration at the hands of the State Government solely because it was preferred within 60 days calculated from 15-11-2001 but beyond 21-11-2001. 35. There is not one objection which may not have received consideration at the hands of the State Government solely because it was preferred within 60 days calculated from 15-11-2001 but beyond 21-11-2001. 35. So far as the objections preferred by the Municipal Council collectively and the individual 239 objectors are concerned, no one has alleged that anyone of the factors contemplated as relevant by Article 243-Q proviso of the Constitution was absent or non-existent. None has disputed the correctness of the population figure as totalled by the census. The contentions raised are that the development works initiated by the Municipal Council may be adversely affected or that the taxes would increase while the quantum of State's financial aid or grant may be reduced. Though, it is for the State Government to apply its mind to the relevance and weight of the objections preferred still we may note the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-State Government that a mere change in the constitution of the local self Government does not necessarily entail discontinuance of development projects and there is no reason to apprehend, that they would not be continued. A change in governance is involved at every election though the administration continues with Municipal Council. At the time of an election certain development works would be pending in progress which would naturally be taken over by the successor Municipal Council. Just as any new Municipal Council would take over the on-going projects initiated by the predecessor Municipal Council so also a Municipal Corporation newly brought into being shall takeover the continuing projects of previous Municipal Council. Every change in mode of governance needs some readjustments. Need for switching over from Municipal Council to Municipal Corporation mode of administration is occasioned by growth of population and prosperity in any particular urban area. People share the prosperity and so must be prepared to pay the additional price by way of additional taxes, submitted the learned Counsel for the State Government and we found substance therein."" (underline is ours) In view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that curtailment of period from 60 days to 30 days is unconstitutional. It is to be noted here that as a matter of fact which is borne by record, the citizens of Ahmednagar and Dhule have if fact raised the objections pursuant to the notification issued on 15-11-2001 and in our considered opinion that curtailment of period of this case has not adversely affected them considering the law declared by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, we repeal the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioners. We may state here that in view of observation of the Apex Court quoted above the Submission No. 13 of the learned Advocate Shri Dhorde, has to be rejected. As we noticed from the record, that residents of Ahmednagar have submitted objections and suggestions, they were submitted before the Collector and with the comments/remarks were forwarded to the State Government and on considering the entire material the Government has taken the decision. 27. It is not disputed that Ahmednagar smaller urban area as notification dated 29-6-1999 inclaim Ahmednagar city and Kedgaon and the figure of population which was considered is issuance of notification under section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act refers to the provisional figured census for the year 2001 is 3,07,455. The figure which is shown in the notification reflects the fact that it has crossed the bad mark of three lacs. The petitioners have produced the census of India 2001, series Z, Maharashtra Provisional Population wherein the figure of Ahmednagar small urban area has been mentioned as 3,07,455 and the figure has been relied on by the Government in issuing notification. It is to be noted that the petitioners have not denied the correct of the provisional figures as referred in Exh. 2 but the contention was that the Government of Maharashtra in a proclamation dated 24-4-2001 has decided to delete village Kedgam from Ahmednagar Municipal Council area that proclamation was withdrawn and cancelled by notification dated 12-8-2001. Thus, the fact remains that Ahmednagar Municipal Council area which was in existence on 25-4-2001 is intact and the figure of population as referred to in Exh. Z-2 was figure accepted by the Government to exercise its authority. Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in para 26 of Jalgaon Municipal Council case squarely applied to this case also. Z-2 was figure accepted by the Government to exercise its authority. Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in para 26 of Jalgaon Municipal Council case squarely applied to this case also. It is the contention of the learned Counsel to the figures of population has been disputed by the petitioners in this petition cannot be accepted in view of the positive record produced by the petitioners themselves. It is not possible to accept this contention. As per the submission of the learned Advocate General the population is the base for exercising power and section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act, refers to the word ""population"" means the population on the date of issuance of notification. The contention of the Advocate General in this behalf being plausible and acceptable and on the backdrop of the law of the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that provisional figure as published by census of India 2001, series 21, cannot be accepted for the purpose of exercising power under section 3(2) of 1949 Act. 28. We now refer to the contentions regarding challenges to the validity of Act No. 8/2002 as contended by the learned Advocates for the petitioners in both the petitions. It is contended that adding of explanation by amended section 5 to the original section 5 runs contrary to the definition of the population referred to under Article 243-P(g). In our view that contention and the challenges are ill-founded. It is to be noted that section 3 sub-section (2) empowers the State Government to exercise the power to specify a larger urban area. Sub-section (2) of section 3 is relevant for our purpose. According to section 3 sub-section (2) which empowers the State Government having regard to the factors mentioned in Clause 2 of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India to specify any urban area with population of not less than three lacs as urban area. It is not disputed before us that Ahmednagar Municipal Council and Dhule Municipal Council were smaller urban areas before the issuance of notification under section 3. It is not disputed before us that Ahmednagar Municipal Council and Dhule Municipal Council were smaller urban areas before the issuance of notification under section 3. The learned Advocate General was right in his submission when he emphasized that it is the population which has to be taken into consideration as a base to exercise the power given under sub-section (2) of section 3. While doing so the factors as mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 243-Q have to be given due regard. Article 243-Q(2) which deals with Constitution of Municipalities specifies that larger area means such as area as the Governor, having regard to the population of the area, density of population thereof, revenue generated for local administration, 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 purpose of Part IX-A. The power that is to be exercised by the Governor can be exercised by the State Government is no more res integra in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in (State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1512. We need not refer in detail to the law declared by the Apex Court in Pradhan Sangh's case. We have to find out while issuing the notification under section 3 whether all the ingredients or factors enumerated in Article 243-Q(2) have been taken into consideration having regard to Article 243-Q(2) which means that it only obliges the Government to consider relevant data, material which must have regard to while exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 3. We have already noticed from the record produced before us the Government before issuance of notification under section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act had before it all relevant data in respect of all factors referred to under Article 243-Q(2), while narrating the facts we have already quoted above the relevant facts and figures in para 24 of this judgment. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the notification under section 3 sub-section (2) the other relevant factors apart from the population have not been considered cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the notification under section 3 sub-section (2) the other relevant factors apart from the population have not been considered cannot be accepted. Provisions of section 3(2) of 1949 Act, spells out that a smaller larger urban area can be converted into larger urban area, the moment smaller urban area crosses the population of 3 lakhs, then the Government has having regard to the other factors mentioned in Article 243-Q(2) to and if the Governor/the State Government may deem fit, can exercise the power in that behalf. So far as the other factors there is no specification that each item referred to in that article has to reach a particular figure or percentage. In absence of such specification, it is for the Governor or for that purpose the State Government to take those facts and figures called by its source to come to the conclusion whether to issue a notification or not for conversion. In both the petitions record indicates that the facts and figure relating to other factors referred to in sub-article (2) of Article 243-Q(2), were before the Government and the decision is accordingly taken. In our view all the factors referred to in Article 243-Q(2) were present, and having regard to all those factors the action is taken. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Advocates that factors mentioned in Article 243-Q(2) were not considered. We may also state that the notification itself makes a reference to the fact that while issuing notification due regard is given to the factors mentioned in Article 243-Q(2). Nothing has been brought before us by the petitioners to contradict the statement appearing in the notification. Thus we repeal the contention of the learned Counsel that the notification under section 3 sub-section (2) has been issued only on the basis of population and that too provisional figure of population. 29. Now we turn to the contentions regarding challenges to the constitutional validity of section 5 as introduced by Act No. 8/2002. We must make it clear that the contentions that are raised in para 11-Q to 11-U are insufficient to consider the challenges. 29. Now we turn to the contentions regarding challenges to the constitutional validity of section 5 as introduced by Act No. 8/2002. We must make it clear that the contentions that are raised in para 11-Q to 11-U are insufficient to consider the challenges. However, the learned Counsel appearing for both the petitions have vehemently submitted that Article 243-P(g) of the Constitution of India, defines the population which means the population ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published. The learned Counsel in both the petitions contended that the definition of population must be read into sub-section (3) of section 2 when it refers to the population. At this juncture we make it clear that by adding explanation to section 5 of 1949 Act term 'last census figure' has been explained. It is to be noted here that section 3 is in Chapter 1 of the Act of 1949 and section 5 is in Chapter No. 2. Section 5 deals with Constitution of Corporation which provides the number of Councillors elected direct at ward elections and for this purpose and to divide the Corporation into wards the explanation has been added to section 5. It is to be noted here that number of Councillors to be elected for the Corporation are equal number to that of wards that are to be divided. When the population crosses bench mark of three lacs, the minimum number of elected Councillors shall be 65 and there will be equal number of wards. Section 5-A makes a provision for reservation of seat which is the mandate of Constitution Part IX-A, Article 243-T. It is very difficult for us to accept the contention of learned Advocate that by inserting explanation to section 5 of 1949 Act, the State Legislature has modified the definition of population referred to under Article 243-P(g). It is to be noted that population has been defined under section 2 sub-section (3) of 1965 Act which is paria materia with definition contained in Article 243-P(g) but however, there is no corresponding definition of population under 1949 Act. The petitioners could not demonstrate before us by adding explanation to sub-section (3) of section 5 of 1949 Act how and what manner the definition given under Clause (g) of Article 243-P has been modified by the State Legislature. The petitioners could not demonstrate before us by adding explanation to sub-section (3) of section 5 of 1949 Act how and what manner the definition given under Clause (g) of Article 243-P has been modified by the State Legislature. The explanation added to section 5 sub-section (3) is for the purpose of division of wards (seat) to be allotted to every Corporation (larger urban area) after it is constituted. The petitioners have contended that Articles 330, 332 also refers to the identical terminology ""last preceding census of which the relevant figures of the present census have not been published."" It is contended by the learned Advocates that the figures of the present census have not been published as yet and thereby by adding explanation to sub-section (3) of section 5 of 1949 Act it has permitted the State Government to consider the provisional figures pending publication of final figures. Reading the explanation to sub-section (3) of section 5 of 1949 Act as added by Act No. 8/2002 it cannot be assumed and presumed that it is effected and resulted in amending the definition given in the Constitution. 30. We will now find out the effect of amended section 5 of the 1949 Act, as both the learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that adding of explanation to section 5 of 1949 has in fact amended definition of population in the Constitution of India and as such the legislature have crossed its legislative limit. As it is not disputed that Census 2001 is conducted under the Census Act, 1948, census subject comes under Entry No. 69 of 1st list of VIIth Schedule of Constitution of India which does not deal with the definition of population. The definition of population is given under Article 243-P(g) of the Constitution of India which means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published. Article 243-ZF, provides for continuance of existing law and Municipalities. The State legislature after commencement of Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 within the time prescribed by this article has amended both the existing laws i.e. 1965 Act and 1949 Act, for which we are concerned. Section 3(2) has been amended in 1994, by which the State Government is permitted to declare existing smaller urban area into larger urban area. The State legislature after commencement of Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 within the time prescribed by this article has amended both the existing laws i.e. 1965 Act and 1949 Act, for which we are concerned. Section 3(2) has been amended in 1994, by which the State Government is permitted to declare existing smaller urban area into larger urban area. If the existing smaller urban area of which the population is not less than 3 lakh, having regard to other factors mentioned in sub-article (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India (sic). So far as section 3(2) is concerned, it is not amended by section 5 of Act VIII of 2002. The question as to how to ascertain figure of population for the purpose of section 3(2) in our view stands concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. We need not ponder on that issue again. Article 243-R provides for composition of Municipalities which read thus : ""243-R. Composition of Municipalities.—(1) Save as provided in Clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area and for this purpose each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. (underline ours) (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide (Rest is omitted as not material)."" Article 243-ZA provides for election of members. Sub-Article (2) of Article 243-ZA commands the State Legislature to make laws in respect to all matters relating to or in connection with election to Municipalities. As per the mandate of Article 243-R all seats are to be filled in by the persons chosen by direct election from the territorial division of constituencies known as 'Ward'. Section 5 of 1949 Act, deals with the Constitution of Corporation. We have already reproduced the relevant provision in earlier part of this judgment. The amendment that is brought in section 5 of 1949 is for the purpose of division of wards, as the wards are to be divided as per provision of section 5, are thus in consonance with Article 243-R of the Constitution. In order to consider the submission of the learned Counsel about the challenge to Act No. VIII of 2002 we may note the title of the amending Act which reads thus: 1. In order to consider the submission of the learned Counsel about the challenge to Act No. VIII of 2002 we may note the title of the amending Act which reads thus: 1. 'Short title and commencement'.—(1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils (Amendment) and Temporary Provisions for Conduct of Elections of Municipal Corporations Act, 2001. (underline ours). This shows that Act of 1949 is amended by Act No. VIII of 2002 for the purpose of holding elections of Municipalities, is a facet of Constitution of Corporation. How the seats at ward elections are to be filled in is also indicated in section 5 and to constitution of Corporation by direct elections section 5 is enacted, and to that existing section explanation is added which will be for the purpose of holding election. Thus in our view the scope and ambit of section 3(2) and section 5 of 1949 Act are altogether distinct different and those sections can not be read into or referred to as to supplement to each other and as such in our view adding explanation to section 5 sub-section (3) of 1949 cannot be considered to mean that it has the effect of amending the definition of population contained in Article 243-P(g). The Act No. VIII of 2002 is for the purpose of holding election and the provision is made by adding explanation to enable the authorities to divide the territorial area of Municipality into various wards as per the explanation, it has explained the term ""the latest census figure"" for the purpose to divide the wards as provided in main section 5 of 1949, and it cannot be said that this explanation has amended the definition of 'population' as defined in Article 243-P(g). 31. We must look this aspect from another angle, to find out the correctness of the submission of the learned Counsel. It is not disputed that after the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 which came into force on 1-6-1993. Consequent upon the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, various amendments were made in 1965 Act by State Legislature, vide Act No. 41/1994, which came into force on 31-5-1994 to bring the Act in line with the constitutional amendments. Article 243-R (for which we have quoted above) relates to composition of Municipalities, Article 243-S relates to Constitution and composition of wards Committees etc. Article 243-R (for which we have quoted above) relates to composition of Municipalities, Article 243-S relates to Constitution and composition of wards Committees etc. Article 243-T commands for reservation of S.C., S.T. in Corporation and also for Chairperson. Article 243-ZA relates to the election of the Municipalities. ""243-ZA(2) : Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities."" If we analyse sub-article (2) of Article 243-ZA, which empowers the State Legislature to pass a law subject to the provisions of constitution, all matters relating to or in connection with the election to the Municipalities. We have noticed that section 5 of 1949 Act is amended by section 5 of Act No. VIII of 2002, which provides for Constitution of Corporation which includes election of Councillors and by adding explanation to section 5(3) of 1949 Act the State Legislature has explained the term ""latest census figure"". This amendment has nothing to do with the definition of 'population'. The provisions so made are in respect of elections to the Municipalities which come within the terminology referred to under Article 243-ZA. In our view section 5 of 1949 Act squarely refers to ""territorial constituencies"" to be known as ""wards"". This being the position which emerges from the various provisions of the Constitution of India and 1949 Act. Therefore, in view of the specific provision contained in Article 243-ZA(2) read with Article 243-ZG sub-article (a) we are of the view that the challenges to the provision of section 5 of the Act No. VIII of 2002 being meritless, we reject the same as untenable and we hold that the said provisions are not ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, and the State Legislature has the legislative competence to enact Act No. VIII of 2002 and answer the question Nos. 1 and 2. 32. So far as the petition relating to Dhule Municipal Council is concerned the learned Senior Advocate Shri Shah, has accepted that the population has crossed bench mark therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with those contentions in Dhule Municipal Council case. 33. It is submitted by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent State that formation of Corporation under section 3 is a Legislative function. 33. It is submitted by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent State that formation of Corporation under section 3 is a Legislative function. It is submitted by learned Special Counsel that while issuing notification under section 3 of 1965 and 1949 Act the only requirement of previous publication which has been done in the present case. The learned Special Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra has in order to substantiate his contention relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in (The Tulshipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulshipur)4, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 882 and in the case of (Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and others v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others)5, reported in 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 82 : 1989(3) S.C.C. 396 . It is submitted on the basis of the law declared by the Apex Court in the above said judgments that establishment of a Corporation is neither executive nor administrative function but it is a legislative process. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that this being a legislative process, the action cannot be challenged on the ground of mala fides or arbitrary action. The learned Counsel submitted that the requirement of formation of the Corporation under section 3 sub-section (2) being legislative process, this Court cannot consider the question as an appellate authority. It is submitted that the judicial review in such cases is limited only to find out whether the procedure prescribed under law has been followed and if said procedure is followed then it is not for this Court to decide that action as legal or illegal as an appellate authority deciding the regular appeal. It is submitted that the action in question is a legislative process and the challenges to such action normally will be the same while judging the other legislative action such as passing of Act or issuance of ordinances etc. The contention of the learned Special Counsel requires to be accepted. It is to be noted that parameters laid down in Article 243-Q(2) read with section 3 sub-section (2) were duly considered by the Government and therefore, the action of the Government cannot be impugned on the ground as stated by the petitioners such as it being politically motivated. The contention of the learned Special Counsel requires to be accepted. It is to be noted that parameters laid down in Article 243-Q(2) read with section 3 sub-section (2) were duly considered by the Government and therefore, the action of the Government cannot be impugned on the ground as stated by the petitioners such as it being politically motivated. The attempt of the Government to postpone the elections of both the Municipal Councils initially requesting the State Election Commission to postpone the election, secondly by adopting legal remedies of filing writ petition in this High Court and then in Apex Court. It is true that the Government has in fact, tried to stall election but could not succeed but on that ground alone we cannot jump to the conclusion that issuance of notification under section 3 sub-section (2) of 1949 Act read with section 3 of 1965 Act being mala fide or colourable exercise of power, we are not ready to accept such contention. Once we hold that the issuance of notification under section 3 being a legislative process relying on the law declared by Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar Co. and Sundarjas (supra) the contention on that ground also fails. Both the learned Advocate and learned Senior Counsel made submission taking into consideration of the proviso of section 3 of the 1965 Act which provides for specification of smaller urban area where provisos (a) and (b) speaks population and percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, on the same analogy the learned Counsel contend while specification of smaller urban area to larger urban the said percentage has to be multiplied proportionately. We see no substance in this contention. The legislation while amending section 3 of 1949, has not incorporated such terms as used in 1965 Act and we cannot read those provisions of 1965 Act into 1949 Act. As 1949 Act section 3(2) refers to the 'population' only and has not specified anything more in that sub-section. We fail to understand how that provision of section 3 of 1965 will help the petitioners to challenge the notification under section 6 of 1949 Act. 34. Now remains the question as to giving opportunity to the objectors of being heard. It is true that the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case has considered this aspect in the facts of that case. 34. Now remains the question as to giving opportunity to the objectors of being heard. It is true that the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case has considered this aspect in the facts of that case. In Jalgaon Municipal Council case proclamation and notification issued under section 3 of 1965 and 1949 Act were challenged by the Municipal Council itself and the Municipal Council has collected the objections from 239 residents and those objections were forwarded and reached the Government. In Jalgaon Municipal Council case the final notification of formation of the Corporation was not issued and as such the Apex Court has observed that hearing should have been given to those persons but in the present case what we noticed is that objections were received from the residents of Ahmednagar and Dhule respectively by the Collector and the Collector has forwarded those objections with his comment to the Government. The record produced before us indicates that the Collector has offered his comments on each and every objection. The hearing was fixed before the Hon'ble Minister on 23-11-2001 but as it is borne by the record that only two persons from Dhule appeared and sought adjournment. So far as hearing of objection regarding Ahmednagar Municipal Council is concerned, we see from the record that the objections were raised in identical fashion and the Collector considering those objections with his comments forwarded all the objections to the Government and the Government has considered the same while issuing final notification. With this backdrop, we have to consider the observations made by the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case. We have quoted in detail the observations made by the Apex Court in the earlier part of the judgment. In our opinion from the record produced before us we are of the firm view that the State Government has applied its mind to the relevant objections preferred. On the facts produced before us we are of the view that the objections were duly considered by the Government and the final notification has been issued. The State Government has duly considered all the objections as the objections were considered, it was not necessary to give hearing to all the objectors, as held by the Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar and Sundarjas (supra) and on that point the action cannot be faulted with. The State Government has duly considered all the objections as the objections were considered, it was not necessary to give hearing to all the objectors, as held by the Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar and Sundarjas (supra) and on that point the action cannot be faulted with. For the above said reasons, we are of the view that the challenge to notification under section 3 read with section 3 of 1949 Act must fail and all the contentions raised by the petitioners in both the petitions in this behalf stand repealed. The apprehension expressed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that after formation of the Corporation the roster regarding reservation of the post of Mayor etc. will have to be modified and it will affect all the Corporation. It is to be noted that as soon as the Corporation is formed, the division of wards, reservation of seats, reservation of the post of Chairperson will automatically be governed by the provisions contained in Chapter IXA of the Constitution of India and 1949 Act, and the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is ill founded in particular the observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 10-1-2001 quoted above. 35. Now remains the question of consultation with the existing Municipal Councils. The importance regarding requirement of consultation with Municipal Council is no more res integra in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court on the same question i.e. question No. 4 in Jalgaon Municipal Council case as stated in para 38 of the judgment which reads thus : ""38. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that steps for constitution of Municipal Corporation fall within the purview of section 3 of BPMC Act which requires the specification of larger urban area, and Constitution of Municipal Corporation therein, to be preceded by a notification subject to the condition of previous publication. Consultation is not one of requirements of section 3 and therefore the High Court went wrong in holding that for want of consultation, the process of constitution of Municipal Corporation of the city of Jalgaon was vitiated. With this submission we do not agree. The Jalgaon Municipal Council was already in existence, Jalgaon being smaller urban area. It was proposed to be converted into a larger urban area. With this submission we do not agree. The Jalgaon Municipal Council was already in existence, Jalgaon being smaller urban area. It was proposed to be converted into a larger urban area. This process would involve abolition of 'municipal area' as defined in within the Clause (24) of section 3 of M.R. Municipal Council Act. Any of the events provided by Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 must satisfy the requirement of consulting the Municipal Council provided for by proviso to sub-section (1) before issuing the notification and before that, notification should also followed the procedure prescribed by section 3 mutatis mutandis. Section 6(1)(d) covers within its scope any event, the declaration whereof has the effect of the whole of any area comprising a municipal area ceasing to be a municipal area. Thus conversion of Jalgaon Municipal Council to Municipal Corporation involves not only specification of large urban area and Constitution of Municipal Corporation of the city of Jalgaon, it also involves the whole of the local area comprising the municipal area of Jalgaon ceasing to be a municipal area with effect from the date of change. Therefore consulting the Municipal Council is mandatory."" The learned Advocate General in his usual fairness has stated before is that the Municipal Councils, Ahmednagar and Dhule will be consulted and then the fresh notification will be issued. We accept the concession made by the learned Advocate General and on this concession we set aside the final notification and direct the State Government to consult Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Dhule within one month from today. The consultation with the Municipal Council must be real, meaningful and effective. We hope and trust that the Government of Maharashtra will send all the relevant material to both the Municipal Councils while completing process of consultation. We have noticed that in both the petitions the Municipal Councils are parties though, the said Municipal Councils are represented by the Advocates but no return has been filed and no submissions have been made on their behalf. We have noticed that in both the petitions the Municipal Councils are parties though, the said Municipal Councils are represented by the Advocates but no return has been filed and no submissions have been made on their behalf. Therefore, we direct that on receipt of the material from the State Government for consultation with the Municipal Councils, the Municipal Councils thereafter, shall submit its opinion within 15 days from the receipt and forward their opinion to the Government and on receipt of the opinion, the Government shall take appropriate final decision either to convert or not to convert the Ahmednagar and Dhule smaller urban area into larger urban area. In our view of questions that were raised before the Apex Court in Jalgaon Municipal Council case, covered all the issues raised before us; and accordingly we rejected all the contentions of the learned Counsel except question regarding consultation with existing Municipal Councils, Ahmednagar and Dhule which we have dealt in above paragraphs. 36. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed as referred to and indicated to that extent in para 35 of the judgment. Rule made absolute partly The notification converting Ahmednagar smaller urban area/Dhule urban area into large urban area dated 16th October, 2001 operating with effect from 18-12-2001 is quashed and set aside. On the facts of these cases, there will be in order as to costs. 37. As the petitions are disposed of all Civil Applications stand disposed of as infructuous. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Advocates appearing for petitioners state that in case the Government after consultation with the existing Municipal Councils, passes an order, the order shall not be given effect to for some period thereafter. We cannot entertain such a prayer as we cannot put an embargo on the power of the Government. Hence, the request is rejected. Petitions partly allowed. ----- "