SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA & ORS. versus COLLECTOR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 13-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUNDARJAS.KANYALAL BHATIJA & ORS. 
v. 
COLLECTOR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
JULY 13, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) 
Constitution of lndia-1950. 
Articles 32, 136, 226 and 141-Judicial Review-Part of the Con-
stitutional scheme-Law to be made clear, certain and consistent. Rules 
A 
B 
of natural justice-Not applicable to legislative action plenary ·or 
subordinate-Requirement of hearing not implied in exercise oflegisfa-
C 
tive powers. 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949-Section 
3-Draft notification-Merger of municipal areas into Corporation 
issuance of-Government not entitled to hear the parties. 
On June 19, 1962, the Government of Maharashtra issued 
a drall notification under Section 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and thereby proposed the formation 
of "Kalyan Corporation", by merging of municipal areas of Kalyan, 
Ambarnath, Domoivali and Ulhasnagar. The proposal was resented to 
by the residents of the said areas and many objections and representa-
tions by persons, companies and authorities including the municipal 
bodies of Ambarnath, and Ulhasnagar were made. So far as Ulhasnagar 
was concerned it was stated that Sindhi Community after partition has 
settled at Ulbasnagar and to keep the identity of' Sindhies distinct, they 
D 
E 
had formed All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation. The said Federa- . 
tion challenged the draft notification by a Writ Petition before the High 
F 
Court. On an assurance being given by the Government before the High 
Court that the representation made by the Federation would be duly 
considered, the Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn. As per the 
assurance, the Federation was given personal hearing on their re-
presentation. Only the Federation was heard, none of the other 
representationistS was afforded any hearing though their objections were 
duly considered. After considering the matter in the manner aforesaid, 
G 
the Government decided to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed 
Corporation and accordingly a notification under section 3(2) of the Act 
was issued. The Corporation was th:is Constituted excluding Ulhas-
nagar. Save as aforesaid no other alteration was made in the noti-
fication. 
405 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Residents of Ambarnath municipal area were not satisfied. 
They moved the High Court challenging the validity of the notification 
issued under section 3(2) of the Act. Their main contention was that 
there has been hostile discrimination in the matter as only the Federa-
tion was heard and none else. They also asserted that the establish-
ment of a Corporation without Ulhasnagar, keeping in view the 
B 
geographical contiguity was- unintelligibe and incomprehensible. 
c 
According to them it was arbitrary and opposed to the object of the Act. 
Federation and others interested in the proceedings were allowed 
to intervene and they supported the stand taken by the Government 
which was the main respondent. 
The State pleaded that the formation of Corporation was an ex-
tension of the legislative process and as such section 3 was a piece of 
conditional legislation, and the notification issued in exercise of that 
power cannot be said to have been vitiated by non-compliance with the 
principles of natural justice. According to the State it was not obligatory 
D 
for the State to issue a preliminary notification over again before the 
final notification excluding Ulhasnagar was issued. 
The High Court took the view that the decision to exclude 
Ulhasnagar was taken by the State abruptly and in an irrational manner 
and that the decision was against the object of the Act. On the legality of 
E 
the procedure followed by the Government, the High Court held that 
once a decision was taken, it was obligatory on the part of the Govern-
ment to reconsider the proposal as a whole so for as the rest of the areas 
were concerned. 
The High Court without quashing the impugned notification 
F 
directed the State Government to reconsider the proposal under sub-
section (3) of the Act either to exclude or include any area and accord-
ingly make amends in the notification. It was also directed that the 
Petitioners and the Federation be given a reasonable opportunity of 
being heard before any final decision in the matter is taken. Against the 
aforesaid decision of the High Court only interveners have preferred 
O 
these appeals. The State and Kelyan City Corporation have

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