Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the dissolution of the Municipal Council, Haridwar, by the State of Uttarakhand. The appellant, Kamal Jora, was elected as the Chairman of the Municipal Council in May 2008. On 20.05.2011, the State Government issued a notification dissolving the Municipal Council and appointing an Administrator, which led to the appellant filing Writ Petition No.1031 of 2011 challenging the notification. The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the notification, stating that the dissolution violated the principles of natural justice as no hearing was provided. The State appealed this decision, and the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's ruling but stayed its operation for three weeks. Following this, the State issued a public notice inviting objections and suggestions regarding the upgradation of the Municipal Council to a Municipal Corporation, which included a hearing for the public. The appellant filed another writ petition against the subsequent notifications issued on 21.07.2011, which were also quashed by the Single Judge. The State's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Division Bench, which found that a hearing had been provided. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that the Municipal Council was indeed given an opportunity to be heard and dismissed the appeal, stating that the process followed was in accordance with the law. The court refrained from addressing other contentions raised by the appellant, noting that elections for the Municipal Corporation were already scheduled. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Hearing - Requirement of Opportunity of Hearing - Article 243U of the Constitution - The court held that a Municipality must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution, as mandated by Article 243U(1) of the Constitution. The court found that the Municipal Council, Haridwar was indeed given an opportunity to present objections and suggestions before the dissolution, thus upholding the process followed by the State Government (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Council, Haridwar was granted an opportunity of hearing before its dissolution and the appointment of an Administrator.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's claims and upholding the process followed by the State Government in dissolving the Municipal Council and appointing an Administrator.
Law Points
- Article 136 of the Constitution
- Article 243Q of the Constitution
- Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act
- 1959
- Section 8-AA of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act
- principles of natural justice
