STATE OF HARYANA versus MOHAN LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 30-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

202 
STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
MOHAN LAL & ORS. 
October 30, 1969 
rs. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Town Improvement Act (Punj. 4 of 1922), ss. 1 (3) 3, 4, 4A 
and 1()3(1) and Punjab Municipal Act, 
1911, s. 238-Supers.,sion of 
Municipality-Power of Government to set up Improvement Trust under 
1922 Act-Power of Government to reconstitute dissolved Trust after re· 
.constitution of Municipal Committee. 
The Rohtak Municipal Committee was superseded in August 1954, 
.and an Administrator was apP<>inted under s. 238 of the Punjab Municipal 
Act, 1911. In June 1958 the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement 
Act, 1922, were extended to the Municipality and the Rohtak Improve· 
ment Trust was set up undelr the Act. In August 1961, the Government 
issued a notification under s. 103 ( 1) of the 1922 Act dissolving the Trust. 
The Municipal Committee w~s reconstituted in January· 1962 
and 
in 
October 1962 the Government decided to reconstitute the Trust. 
The 
~funicipal Committee .. thereupon passed a resolution opposing the recon-
situation of the Trust. 
In 
January 1963, however, the 
Government re-
constituted the Trust and the Municipal Committee was asked to name its 
l'epresentatives to be appointed as trustees.-
The rate·payers filed a writ 
petition challenging the reconstitution of the trust and the High Court 
allowed the petition. 
c 
n 
In appeal to .this Court, 
E 
HELD : (I) The attention of the High Court was not drawn to s. 
4A of the 1922 Act and therefore it erred in holding that the Trust could 
not be set up in 1958 because, under s. 1(3) of the 1922 Act a Trust can-
not be created in a Municipal area unless the committee was functioning. 
Under s. 4A, where the Municipal Committee was superseded the State 
Government could appoint the trustees, and there was no anomaly in the 
Govelrnment nominating the trustees, because, the Administrator who had 
F 
all the powers and duties of the Committee under s: 238 of the 1911 
Act was competent to say to the Government that the 1922 Act should 
not be applied to the Municipality. [205 C-D 206 BJ 
(2) Once the 1922 Act had come into operation under s. 1(3), it 
continues to apply and it was not necessary to apply it again \Vhen the 
Municipal Committee was reconstituted in 1962. (206 DJ 
(3) Under ss. 3 and 4 of the 1922 Act and 
the General Clauses 
(Punjab) Act, t 898, Government has the power to create a new trust or 
reconstitute a Trust which was dissolved. [206 H] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 17, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 110 of 1965. 
· 
G 
H 
' ' 
I-
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HARYANA V. MOHAN LAL (Sikri, J.) 
Janardan Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court -was delivered by 
263 
Sikri, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Punjab accepting the petition filed 
by the rate-payers of Municipal Committee, Rohtak, respJndents 
before us, and ordering that the State Government shalJ not pro-
ceed with the constitution of the Rohtak Improvement Trust under 
the notification of August 30, 1961. 
The High Court allowed 
the petition because it held ( I ) that sub-s. ( 3) of s. I of the 
Punjab Town Improvement Act (Punjab Act IV of 1922)-here-
inafter referred to _as the Act--only envisages the creation of a 
Trust in a Municipal area where a Committee is fonctioning and 
so is in a position to hold a special meeting to decide whether or 
not it considers the creation of a trust desirable, and (2) that once 
a trust ceases to exist under s. I 03 (I ) of the Act in order to 
recreate the trust the Act has to be applied again, and as the 
Municipal Committee had at a special meeting held on Novem-
ber 9, 1962, decided unanimously that the Act should not be 
applied the Government was bound to give effect to that decision. 
The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sachthey, contends 
that the High Court has placed a wrong interpretation on the two 
provisions mentioned abov~ and somehow s. 4-A of the Act was 
not noticed by the High Court. 
Before we deal with the interpretation of the provisions men-
tioned above it is necessary to state a few facts. 
The Rohtak 
Municipal Committee was superseded on August 2, 1954. The 
Government purported to extend the provisions of the Act 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.