LexMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
G
H
375
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
September 12, 1969.
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 31A(l)(b) and 31(2)-Management
of schools taken over for limited period-Property pertaining also acquir·
ed-Acquisition in violation of Art. 31(2)-/f protected by Art. 3!A(l)
(b)-Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911), ss. 52(1)(g) and 59-Constitu-
tional validity of-Punjab Local Authorities (Aided Schools) Act (22 of
1959), ss. 3(2) and 6-Scope of-Act retrospective-Whether notification
issued thereunder also retrospective.
The appellant-Committee was constituted under the Punjab Municipal
Act 1911, and was running a number of municipal schools, for some of
which it was ~el.ting grant-in-aid from the respondent-State.
The respon-.
dent took an administrative decision. without any statutory authority, to
provinciali•e all the schools run by the local bodies in the State with
effect from October I, 1957, and till June 1959, various steps in the process
of.provincialisation were taken. In June 1959. the Punjab Local Authori-
ties (Aided Schools) Act. 1959. was passed after obtaining the assent of
the President. The Act was deemed to have come into force with effect
from October 1, 1957.
The scheme of the Act is that it is initially left to the local authority
to pass a resolution to t'ransfer the management and control of aided
schools to the State Government.
In order to employ compulsive persua-
sion the State Government can withdraw the grant-in-aid in respect of the
aided schools if such authority does not pass a resollltion in· terms of s. 3
within a period of 3 months from the date of the enactment of the
statute. Section 5 gives power to the State Government to take over aided
schools where the local authority neglects to perform its duty or if it is
conSidered ·necessary in public interest to take over the management for
a period not exceeding ten years, but only after giving the local authority
a rea·sonable oppOrtunity for showing cause.
The proviso to the section
arm-s the State Government with powers, in case of emergency and in the
interests of students, to take over the management straight away
after
publica1ion df a notification to that effect. There is no provision, however,
for an automatic retransfer of the property after lapse of the period of
10 years.
Section 6 introduces amendments in ss. 52 and 59 of the
Punjab MuniCip
Act.
Clause (g), introduced in s. 52(1), enables ;he
State Government t
et an annual contribution from the local bodies, and
the amendments to s.
9, vest in the State not only the management of
the schools t'!l<en over but also the interests in the movable and immov-
able properties pertaining thereto.
As the appellant decided not to pass the resolution under s. 3 the
respondent issued a notitkation 'on September 26, 1960. taking over .. for
a pe{iod of 10 years, the management of the aided schools specified in
the schedule' to the notification. On the auestion of payment of the con-
tribution it was resolved on Januarv 3, 1962, that the payment be made
with effect from October 1, 1957, While retaining the prop-ietary rights in
the schools; ·but_ the appellant subsequently passed seve'ral
resolutions
practically resdniling this resolution with respect to the payment of any
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
contribution. On April 10, 1964, the appellant was required by order to
pay about Rs. 53 lakhs on account of the tontribution for the mainte-
nance of the provincialised schools for the period 1957-58 to 1963-64.
Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition undelr Arts. 226 and 227 in the
High Court, challenging the orders and the constitutional validity of the
Act.
The petition was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court it was contended : (1) The taking over of the
movable and immovable property of the appellant did not fall within Art.
31A(l)(b) and the action was in direct contravention of Art. 31(2); (2)
The . notification dated September 26, 1960, was not protected by the
provis.o to s. 5, because, there was no question of any emefgericy, nor was
such emergency pleaded or proved by the respondent; ( 3) The notifica-
tion could not_ and did not validate the action prior to the date when it
was issued; ( 4) Section 6 of the Act whirh effected amendments of the
provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act could not be attracted; and (5)
SectExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.