Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

Sanjay Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-03-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the inclusion of their “Gram Sabha” into “Nagar Panchayat”, and in some cases into “Nagar Palika Parishad” and even “Nagar Nigam”. Petitioners rely upon Article 243-Q as well as Article 243-U of the Constitution of India read with relevant provisions of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act as well as U.P. Municipalities Act and the relevant provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and would argue that the entire exercise undertaken by the Government in this regard is illegal. In some of the petitions, the issue is also regarding up-gradation of Nagar Palika Parishad to Nigam and its fallout as stated above. 2. The combined argument of all the petitioners is that proper hearing as visualized under the law has not been given to the petitioners, before the up-gradation of the local bodies. 3. On two occasions, hearing was given to the petitioners as well as to the State, which is being represented before this Court by the learned Advocate General Sri S.N. Babulkar. On 08.03.2018, these matters were adjourned for today i.e. 09.03.2018. 4. It was also a prima facie opinion of this Court earlier that the only issue which has to be seen by this Court is as to whether a proper hearing has been given to the petitioners by the State/State Authorities in these matters or not, as when a “Gram Sabha” or any local body is upgraded, though no opportunity of hearing is required, but when as a consequence of it, a “Gram Sabha” or “Nagar Panchayat” or “Nagar Palika Parishad”, as the case might be, is to be dissolved, in order to facilitate its inclusion in the upgraded body, then rights of the persons who are elected representatives, as well as rights of ordinary members of “Gram Sabha” are involved, and therefore an opportunity of hearing is mandatory. This has also been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.06.2011 in the case of State of Uttarakhand & another v. Dinesh Randhawa & others (Special Appeal No. 103 of 2011) along with connected special appeal. 5. This has also been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.06.2011 in the case of State of Uttarakhand & another v. Dinesh Randhawa & others (Special Appeal No. 103 of 2011) along with connected special appeal. 5. Today, before the matters could be heard, the learned Advocate General Sri S.N. Babulkar has very fairly and generously given a statement before this Court that in order to bring the controversy to an end, the State Government is prepared to give a “reasonable hearing”, to all the petitioners and in fact to every affected person. 6. In view of this statement of the learned Advocate General Sri S.N. Babulkar, which needs to be appreciated by this Court, nothing further needs to be done. 7. In view of the above, all the writ petitions stand disposed with the directions to the petitioners to raise their objections, if any, before the Committee or the Authority, which is authorized under the law to hear such objections. The State Government shall also give an advertisement in two daily newspapers which have wide circulation in the State of Uttarakhand so that every other affected person may also file objections. Let a proper advertisement be given within forty-eight hours from today. Let all the affected persons be heard, who shall be given at least one week’s time to file their objections from the date of advertisement and within one week thereafter, the State Government shall decide their objections in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, all the notifications which have been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions, including the Notification dated 1411/IV(3)/2017 dated 22.09.2017, IV (3)/2016-01 (13)/2010 dated 05.07.2016, IV (3)/2015-01 (15)/2013 dated 29.11.2015, 1416/IV-(3)/2017-387/2001 dated 22.09.2017, 1879(2)/IV(3)/ 2017-01 dated 24.10.2017 stand quashed. Interim order of this Court dated 11.01.2018 and 19.02.2018 stand vacated. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself on payment of usual charges.