- (1.) IN this Rule the petitioners pray for cancellation of certain resolution (annexure D to the petition) relating to the grant of lease of 'darjeeling Town hall' a property of the Darjeeling Municipality in favour of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE facts as set out by the petitioners briefly are : the petitioners are the residents of darjeeling within its municipal limits, the petitioner No. 2 being also a rate payer of the Municipality. A Town hall substantially at the expense of the then Maharaja of Cooch Behar was constructed sometime in 1917. Thereafter, he made a gift of this property to the Municipality of Darjeeling. Although the Town Hall was required to be used for the benefit of the general public within the municipal area of the darjeeling Municipality under the Trust created by the then Maharaja of Cooch behar, it was leased out in spite of pro-test made by the Youth Federation of darjeeling to the respondent No. 3 for running a Cinema House sometime in 1955 for a period of 10 years with an option of renewal by the Municipality for a further period of 10 years. On 16-5-65 a public meeting was held under the auspices of the Darjeeling Citizens Welfare committee protesting against the reported renewal of the said lease to the respondent No. 3. In spite of this there was such renewal of lease to the respondent No. 3 g;ranted by the Municipality by the resolution of Commissioners in August 1965. That is how, the petitioners felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) UPON these facts Mr. Arun kumar Dutt, learned Advocate for the petitioners raises the following points : (i) The lease of Town Hall for running a Cinema House is extraneous for the purpose of the Act and contravenes sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 108 of the B. M. Act. (ii) The Town Hall being a Municipal property within the meaning of section 95 (1) (f) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (referred to heirein as the Act) can only be utilised for the purpose where municipal fund is applicable. (iii) The impugned resolution or the lease falls within the scope and ambit of Clause XXXVI of Section 108 of the b, M. Act and as such being foreign to the purpose for which the Municipal fund is applicable they are invalid and inoperative. (iv) The Town Hall being a Municipal property within the scope of 95 (i) (f) of the Act no lease could be granted nor it could be utilised for profits not warranted by terms of Section 95 of the Act. (v) The subsisting lease is an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental right as it tends to create monopoly in favour of the respondent No. 3 to the exclusion of the municipal Authority itself and, therefore, is not in the interest of the general public. ;