KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-1978-11-37
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 08,1978

KARAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER Section 236(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act necessarily envisages the affording of an opportunity of being heard to all the persons likely to be affected by the annulment or modification of a resolution of the municipality under the aforesaid provision, is the significant question which falls for determination in this reference to the Division Bench.
(2.) FOR the limited purpose of the determination of the aforesaid legal issue a bare reference to the facts suffice. On the basis of a note recorded by its President, the Municipal Committee, Patiala, by its resolution No. 705, dated the 18th September, 1970, resolved that certain agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of Kheri Gujjran be cultivated by Karam Singh Petitioner in partnership with the Committee. In pursuance of the said resolution a partnership deed was executed betwixt the Petitioner and the Committee and the possession of the land was delivered to the Petitioner on the same day. One of the terms of the partnership deed was that it was for a fixed period of five years and could be extended with mutual consent of the parties. In order to further effectuate the partnership agreement, the Municipal Committee was contemplating to pass a further resolution. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, Respondent No. 3 passed the order under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act directing the Committee not to consider the agenda regarding that resolution. Subsequently the Governor of Punjab by his order dated the 15th of October, 1970, annulled the above -mentioned resolution No. 705 dated the 18th September, 1970, passed by the Municipal Committee on the ground that the same was not in the interest thereof. The Petitioner primarily seeks to challenge the aforesaid annulment of the resolution under Section 236(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act. When the matter first came up before my learned brother R.N. Mittal J., he noticed some conflict of authority within this Court on the point whether notice was necessary to every person prejudicially affected by the annulment of resolution. This has indeed necessitated the present reference.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, the material provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act) which call for notice are firstly Section 232 which empowers the Deputy Commissioner by order in writing to suspend any resolution or order of the Committee if the pre -requisites specified in the said section are satisfied. The succeeding Sections 233 and 134 of the Act vest some extraordinary powers in the Deputy Commissioner in cases of emergency and for the performance of duties in cases of gross default by the Committee respectively. However, the material provisions of Sections 235 and 236 deserve notice in extenso: Section 235. When the Deputy Commissioner makes any order under Section 232, Section 233 or Section 234 he shall forthwith forward to the State Government a copy thereof, with a statement of the reasons for making it and with such explanation, if any, as the Committee may wish to offer and the State Government may thereupon confirm, modify or rescind the order; Section 236. (1) The State Government and Deputy Commissioner acting under the orders of the State Government, shall be bound to require that the proceedings of committees shall be in conformity with law and with the rules in force under any enactment for the time being applicable to Punjab generally or the areas over which the committee have authority. (2) The State Government may exercise all powers necessary for the performance of this duty and may among other things, by order in writing, annul or modify any proceeding which it may consider not to be in conformity with law or with such rules as aforesaid, or for the reasons, which would in its opinion justify an order by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 232. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, within his jurisdiction for the same purpose, exercise such powers as may be conferred upon him by rule made in this behalf by the State Government.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.