THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus THE JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 14-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
THE JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14. 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Municipalities: . 
Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial 
C Township Act, 1965(Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: 
Sections 2, 3 and ·613-Conversion of Municipal Council to Municipal 
·Corporation. 
Hiatus between-Whether violative of Part IX A of Constitution-Held, 
since hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and constitution of 
D Municipal Corporation is an unavoidable event which must take place in 
conversion thus not violative of Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950 Part 
IX A. 
Conversion notification on publishing of provisional population total 
figure and not final-Validity of-Held, since population crossed the bench_ 
E mark of 3 lakhs, thereby providing requisite foundation for State Government 
to take decision of constitution of Municipal Corporation and also no act, rule 
being issued contemplating publication of final total population after provisional 
list, action of State Government not premature. 
F 
Effective opportunity to raise objections •. whether denied-Held, since 
amendment resulted into curtailing of period appointed for inviting objections 
done only for achieving larger public interest, principles of natural justice not 
violated-Administrative Law. 
Municipal Corporation-Want of consultation with Municipal Council-
Scope of-Held: consultation with Municipal Council mandat01y since 
G conversion involves specification of large urban area and constitution of 
Municipal Corporation of the city and also involves whole of the local area 
comprising municipal area of city ceasing to be a municipal area with effect 
ji·om the date of change. 
H 
Jalgaon was an urban area administered by a Municipal Council 
1112 
STATE v. JALGAON MmTICIPAL COUNCIL 
1113 
constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Council A 
Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965. Appellant-State 
Go,,ernment proposed conversion of it from Municipal Council into 
Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, appellants published two 
proc}amations-·under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 
1949 and the Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and B 
Industrial Township Act, 1965. Respondents filed writ petition challenging 
the notifications. High Court allowed the petition quashing the 
-"' 
notifications. Hence the present appeal. 
+ 
Respondents relying on the provisions of Article 243U(3)(a) of the 
Constitution contended that the steps for constitution of Municipal C 
Corporation should be planned and scheduled, well in advance of time of 
the date by which the term of existing Municipal Council is coming to an 
end so as to see that successor Municipality-Municipal Corporation 
proposed to be constituted, is ready to take over from the Municipality-
Municipal Council proposed to be abolished without there being any hiatus 
in-between necessitating the appointment of an administrator to take D 
charge in the interregnum of the two events; and that the figures of census 
published by the Director of Census Operation, Maharashtra were only 
provisional and could not have been acted upon unless the final population 
totals were published. 
Appellants contended that the process of conversion of an area from E 
M1'.nicipal Council to Municipal Corporation would necessarily involve a 
hiatus which is an unavoidable necessity; and that the steps for constitution 
of Municipal Corporation fell within the purview of section 3 of the 1949 
Act \Vhich requires the specification of larger urban area, and constitution 
of Municipal Corporation therein to be preceded by a notification subject F 
to the condition of previous publication. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The hiatus between abolition of Municipal Council and 
constitution of Municipal Corporation is an unavoidable event which must G 
take place in the process of conversion of Municipal Council into a 
Municipal Corporation. Reliance on Article 243U of the Constitution is 
misconceived. The use of expression 'a municipality' in sub-article (3) of 
Article 243U in the context and in the setting in which it is employed 
suggests and means the duration of the same type of municipality coming 
to an end and the same type of successor municipality taking over as a H 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A consequence of term of th

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