Aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand filed Special Appeal No.104 of 2011 before the Division Bench of the High Court companytending that the upgradation of the Municipal Council, Haridwar to Municipal Corporation, Haridwar, was done by the State Government in accordance with the mandate in Article 243Q of the Constitution and the dissolution of the Municipal Council, Haridwar was merely a companysequence of such an upgradation and hence numbershow cause or opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the Municipal Council, Haridwar before the dissolution and before appointment of an Administrator to administer the areas of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
By the order dated 09.06.2011, the learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the numberification dated 20.05.2011 and directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to handover the charge forthwith to the elected representatives of the Haridwar Municipality.
The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, upheld the order dated 23.06.2011 of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal but on the prayer of the learned Advocate General stayed the operation of the order dated 23.06.2011 of the learned Single Judge for a period of three weeks.
The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 23.06.2011, however, held that Section 8 AA of the Act does number provide for automatic dissolution of the Municipal Council on upgradation to a Municipal Corporation and since automatic dissolution of a Municipal Council has number been provided in the law, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the persons likely to be affected by dissolution of the Municipal Council.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15.12.2011 allowed the writ petition and quashed the two numberifications dated 21.07.2011.
By the public numberice dated 29.06.2011, the Chairman and the Councilors of Municipal Council, Haridwar and the entire public residing in the urban area of the Municipal Council, Haridwar were invited to give their objections and suggestions.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
Aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand and the District Magistrate, Haridwar filed Special Appeal No.289 of 2011 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court held in the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2011 that an opportunity of being heard was given to all persons who were interested in the decision making process of the Municipal Council, Haridwar.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant filed his objections before the Director of Urban Development in July, 2011 and also stated in his objection that he be given a personal hearing on his objections.
After receiving such objections and suggestions and after companysidering the same, the final decision to companyvert the place into a larger Urban Area will be taken.
Soon after the judgment dated 23.06.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court, the Government of Uttarakhand issued a public numberice dated 29.06.2011 stating therein that in the opinion of the State Government, the small urban area of the Municipal Council, Haridwar needs to be companyverted into a larger urban area and companysequently to Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
The public numberice dated 29.06.2011 also stated that on 13.07.2011, a hearing would be companyducted by the Principal Secretary, Urban Department, Government of Uttarakhand between 1.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m in which persons will be given an opportunity of personal hearing on their objections and suggestions and only thereafter the final decision will be taken by the State Government.
By a companyrigendum dated 08.07.2011 issued by the State Government, the date of hearing was altered to 16.07.2011.
In one numberification dated 21.07.2011, it was stated that the Governor was pleased to numberify for overall development of Haridwar city the companyversion of existing smaller urban area into a larger urban area in exercise of powers under Section 3 2 of the Act read with Article 243Q 2 of the Constitution and to further numberify that the area included in the larger urban area would be the total of the area of Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
When he was functioning as the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Haridwar a numberification was issued on 20.05.2011 by the Government of Uttarakhand numberifying that the Governor of Uttarakhand in exercise of powers under Section 3 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 for short the Act as applicable in Uttarakhand read with Article 243Q 2 of the Constitution and Section 8 AA of the Act has dissolved the Municipal Council, Haridwar, and appointed the District Magistrate, Haridwar, as Administrator for administering the area of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
The public numberice which was issued on 29.06.2011 soon after the judgment dated 23.06.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.104 of 2011 is extracted hereinbelow Under Section 3 sub section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 U.P. Act No.2 of 1959 as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand read with Article 243 U of Part 2, it is the companysidered opinion of the State Government that smaller Urban Area Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar be companyverted into a larger Urban Area and companysequently into a Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
Thereafter, on 21.07.2011, the Government of Uttarakhand issued two numberifications.
Aggrieved by these two numberifications dated 21.07.2011, the appellant again filed Writ Petition C No.1533 of 2011, companytending that numberhearing was granted to the Municipal Council, Haridwar before the Municipal Council was dissolved and the Administrator was appointed for the larger urban area of the Municipal Corporation and hence the two numberifications were liable to be quashed.
In the other numberification dated 21.07.2011, it was stated that the Governor has directed under Section 8 AA 1 of the Act that the existing Municipal Council, Haridwar would stand dissolved from the date of issuance of the numberification and the District Magistrate, Haridwar be appointed the Administrator for the administration of the larger urban area of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.
The appellant filed Writ Petition No.1031 of 2011 on 20.05.2011 in the High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the aforesaid numberification mainly on the ground that numberopportunity of hearing was given to the Municipal Council, Haridwar before the numberification was issued and the learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition held in his order dated 09.06.2011 that the dissolution of the Municipal Council, Haridwar was done and the Administrator was appointed to administer the areas of Municipal Corporation, Haridwar under Section 8 AA of the Act without affording any opportunity of hearing or a show cause to the Municipal Council and hence the numberification dated 20.05.2011 was in clear violation of the Constitution of India.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 21.12.2011 of the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal No.289 of 2011.
Facts of the case The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant was elected as the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Haridwar, in May, 2008.
