Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijaysing Nathesing Rajput, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging a notification dated 23rd October, 2012 issued by the Collector, Dhule, under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965. The notification sought to include certain areas into the limits of Nagarpanchayat Shindkheda. The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the Act, which requires consultation with the local authority and publication of the notification in the prescribed manner. It was further argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or other affected persons before the issuance of the notification, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Nagarpanchayat, the Collector, the State Election Commission, and several private individuals, opposed the petition. The court examined the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and found that the procedure laid down therein is mandatory. The court noted that the Collector had not consulted the local authority as required and had not published the notification in the manner prescribed. Additionally, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The court held that the impugned notification was issued in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the notification dated 23rd October, 2012, and directed the respondents to follow the proper procedure if they intended to include any areas into the limits of the Nagarpanchayat.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Inclusion of Areas - Section 10 of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 - Mandatory Procedure - The Collector issued a notification under Section 10 without following the mandatory procedure of consultation with the local authority and without giving opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. The court held that the procedure under Section 10 is mandatory and non-compliance renders the notification invalid. (Paras 1-10) B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 10 of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 - The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the impugned notification. The court held that principles of natural justice require that persons likely to be affected by such inclusion must be heard. (Paras 1-10) C) Municipal Law - Publication of Notification - Section 10 of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 - The notification was not published in the prescribed manner as required under the Act. The court held that proper publication is a mandatory condition precedent for the validity of the notification. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 23rd October, 2012 issued by the Collector under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965, including certain areas into the limits of Nagarpanchayat Shindkheda, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 23rd October, 2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to follow the proper procedure under Section 10 of the Act if they intend to include any areas into the limits of Nagarpanchayat Shindkheda.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- mandatory procedure
- consultation with local authority
- publication of notification
- opportunity of hearing
- Section 10 Maharashtra Municipal Council
- Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act
- 1965
