Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.   4835       OF 2013  (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1889 of 2012)

  Kamal Jora                                                        … Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.                         …  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. 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

3. The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant  

was  elected  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Municipal  Council,

Page 2

2

Haridwar, in May, 2008.  When he was functioning as the  

Chairman of the Municipal Council, Haridwar a notification  

was  issued  on  20.05.2011  by  the  Government  of  

Uttarakhand notifying  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  

appellant  filed  Writ  Petition  No.1031  of  2011  on  

20.05.2011 in the High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging  

the  aforesaid  notification mainly  on the  ground that  no  

opportunity of hearing was given to the Municipal Council,  

Haridwar  before  the  notification  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-

Page 3

3

AA of the Act without affording any opportunity of hearing  

or a show cause to the Municipal Council and hence the  

notification dated 20.05.2011 was in clear violation of the  

Constitution of India.  By the order dated 09.06.2011, the  

learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition  

and  quashed  the  notification  dated  20.05.2011  and  

directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to handover the  

charge  forthwith  to  the  elected  representatives  of  the  

Haridwar Municipality.   

4. Aggrieved,  the  State  of  Uttarakhand  filed  Special  

Appeal No.104 of 2011 before the Division Bench of the  

High  Court  contending  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  consequence  of  such  an  

upgradation and hence no show 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

Page 4

4

Corporation,  Haridwar.   The Division  Bench of  the  High  

Court  in  its  judgment  dated  23.06.2011,  however,  held  

that  Section      8-AA  of  the  Act  does  not  provide  for  

automatic  dissolution  of  the  Municipal  Council  on  

upgradation  to  a  Municipal  Corporation  and  since  

automatic dissolution of a Municipal Council has not 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 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.

5. Soon  after  the  judgment  dated  23.06.2011  of  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  the  Government  of  

Uttarakhand  issued  a  public  notice  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  converted  into  a  larger  

urban  area  and  consequently  to  Municipal  Corporation,

Page 5

5

Haridwar.  By  the  public  notice  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.  The public notice dated  

29.06.2011  also  stated  that  on  13.07.2011,  a  hearing  

would  be  conducted  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 corrigendum dated  

08.07.2011 issued by the State Government, the date of  

hearing was altered to 16.07.2011.  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.   Thereafter,  on  

21.07.2011,  the Government  of  Uttarakhand issued two  

notifications.  In one notification dated 21.07.2011, it was  

stated that the Governor was pleased to notify for overall  

development of Haridwar city the conversion of existing

Page 6

6

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 notify that the  

area included in the larger urban area would be the total  

of  the  area  of  Municipal  Corporation,  Haridwar.   In  the  

other notification 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 notification and  

the  District  Magistrate,  Haridwar  be  appointed  the  

Administrator  for  the  administration of  the  larger  urban  

area of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar.

6. Aggrieved  by  these  two  notifications  dated  

21.07.2011,  the  appellant  again  filed  Writ  Petition  (C)  

No.1533 of 2011, contending that no hearing 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 notifications were liable to  

be quashed.  The learned Single Judge by his order dated  

15.12.2011 allowed the writ petition and quashed the two

Page 7

7

notifications dated 21.07.2011.   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.  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 appellant  

has filed this appeal.

Contentions of the learned counsel for the parties:  

7. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant,  submitted  that  under  Article  243U(1)  of  the  

Constitution  and  under  Section  10-A  of  the  U.P.  

Municipalities Act, 1916, every Municipality has the right  

to continue for a period of five years from the date of its  

first  meeting unless sooner dissolved under any law for  

the time being in force.  He submitted that the proviso to  

Article 243U(1) of the Constitution says that a Municipality

Page 8

8

shall  be given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  being heard  

before  its  dissolution.   He  submitted  that  the  learned  

Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  in  his  judgment  dated  

09.06.2011  in  Writ  Petition  No.1031  of  2011  and  the  

Division Bench of  the High Court  in  its  judgment dated  

23.06.2011 in Special Appeal No.103 of 2011, therefore,  

held that the Municipal Council, Haridwar, was entitled to  

an  opportunity  of  hearing  before  it  was  dissolved  and  

before the Administrator was appointed by the notification  

dated 20.05.2011.  He submitted that after the judgment  

of the Division Bench of the High Court on 23.06.2011, the  

Government of Uttarakhand invited objections/suggestions  

by a public notice dated 29.06.2011, but no hearing was  

given to the Municipality and yet the Haridwar Municipality  

was again dissolved and an Administrator was appointed  

in its place by the impugned notification dated 21.07.2011  

of the Government of Uttarakhand.   

8. Mr. Hansaria submitted that it is a settled proposition  

of law that if a statute conferring power on an authority to  

take  a  decision  having  civil  consequences  does  not  

expressly prohibit a personal hearing before the decision

Page 9

9

is taken, the rule of fair play requires that an opportunity  

of personal hearing is afforded to the persons likely to be  

affected by the decision.  In support of this proposition, he  

cited the decisions in  Mohinder Singh Gill  & Anr. v. The  

Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [(1978) 1  

SCC 405],  S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. [(1980) 4 SCC  

379] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1  

SCC  664].   He  submitted  that  Section  8-AA  of  the  Act  

which  empowers  the  State  Government  to  dissolve  a  

Municipal  Council  for  the  purpose  of  constituting  a  

Municipal  Corporation  in  its  place  does  not  expressly  

prohibit  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  be  given  to  the  

Municipal  Council  before  its  dissolution  and  therefore  a  

personal  hearing  to  the  Municipal  Council  has  to  be  

granted where the State Government is of the opinion that  

the Municipal Council is to be dissolved for the purpose of  

constituting a Municipal Corporation in its place.

9. Mr. Hansaria next submitted that it will be clear from  

the language of sub-section (1) of Section 8-AA of the Act  

that dissolution of a Municipal Council is to take place only  

if the State Government is of the opinion that until the due

Page 10

10

constitution  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  for  the  larger  

urban  area,  “it  is  expedient”  to  dissolve  the  Municipal  

Council from a specified date and to direct that all powers,  

functions and duties of the Corporation shall as from the  

specified date, be vested in and be exercised, performed  

and discharged by the Administrator.  He submitted that  

there is nothing in the notifications dated 21.07.2011 of  

the State Government to show that the State Government  

formed the opinion that it was expedient to dissolve the  

Municipal Council and to appoint the Administrator.   

10. In  reply,  Dr.  Abhishek  Atrey,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, on the other hand,  

submitted, relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf  

of  respondents no.  1 and 2 as well  as  the order  dated  

19.07.2011 of the Government of Uttarakhand annexed to  

the  counter  affidavit  as  Annexure-C-I,  that  the  Division  

Bench of the High Court has rightly held in the impugned  

judgment  that  a  personal  hearing  was  granted  by  the  

public notice dated 29.06.2011 to all concerned including  

the Municipal Council, Haridwar.  He cited the decision of  

this  Court  in  State  of  Maharashtra  &  Ors.  v.  Jalgaon

Page 11

11

Municipal Council & Ors. [(2003) 9 SCC 731] in which the  

notification  dated  16.10.2001,  as  amended  by  the  

notification  dated  15.11.2001,  dissolving  the  Jalgaon  

Municipal Council was held to satisfy the requirement of  

the principles of natural justice.  He further submitted that  

in  the  judgment  dated  26.02.2010  in  Nagar  Palika  

Parishad & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition (C)  

No.56954 of 2009) the Allahabad High Court has held that  

dissolution of a Municipality of a smaller urban area for the  

purpose  of  upgradation  to  Municipal  Corporation  of  a  

larger  urban  area  cannot  be  termed  as  dissolution  as  

envisaged under Article 243U of the Constitution and the  

proviso to Article 243U is not violated if no opportunity of  

hearing  is  given  to  the  Municipality  before  such  

dissolution.  He  submitted  that  though  Special  Leave  

Petition  (C)  No.13400  of  2010  was  filed  against  the  

aforesaid  judgment  dated  26.02.2010  of  the  Allahabad  

High Court, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition  

with costs by order dated 25.08.2010.  

Findings of the Court

Page 12

12

11.  We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  learned  

counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the  

earlier judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court  

dated 23.06.2011 holding that an opportunity of hearing  

must  be  given  to  persons  likely  to  be  affected  by  

dissolution of the Municipal Council, Haridwar though not  

binding on this Court is binding on the parties in Special  

Appeal No.104 of 2011 in which the aforesaid judgment  

was rendered because of the principle of res judicata.  The  

State Government of Uttarakhand was the appellant in the  

aforesaid  Special  Appeal  No.104  of  2011  and  it  cannot  

therefore now contend that a hearing was not required to  

be granted to the Municipal  Council,  Haridwar,  before it  

issued the two notifications dated 21.07.2011 dissolving  

the  Haridwar  Municipality  and  appointing  an  

Administrator.

12. Hence, the first question that we have to decide is  

whether  an  opportunity  of  hearing  was  granted  to  the  

Municipal  Council,  Haridwar  before  the  two notifications  

dated  21.7.2011  were  issued  dissolving  the  Haridwar  

Municipality  and  appointing  an  administrator  under

Page 13

13

Section  8-AA  of  the  Act.   The  public  notice  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  considered  opinion  of  the  State  Government  that  smaller  Urban  Area  Nagar  Palika  Parishad,  Haridwar  be  converted into a larger Urban Area and  consequently  into  a  Municipal  Corporation, Haridwar.

In  view of the above,  the Chairman of  Nagar  Palika  Parishad,  Haridwar,  the  councilors  of  Nagar  Palika  Parishad,  Haridwar  and  the  entire  public  who  ordinarily  reside  in  the  said  area  are  invited  to  give  their  objections  and  suggestions.  The written objections and  suggestions  should  reach  the  office  of  Director,  Department  of  Urban  Development,  Uttarakhand  43/6,  Mata  Mandir  Marg  Dharmpur,  Dehradun  by  11th July  2011.   Any  suggestion  and  objection received after the said notified  date  will  not  be  accepted.   On  the  receipt  of  the  written  objections  and  suggestions,  a  hearing  would  be  done  on 13th July 2011 by Principal Secretary,  Urban  Development  Department,  Government of Uttarakhand in the office  of  Director,  Department  of  Urban  Development,  Uttarakhand  43/6,  Mata

Page 14

14

Mandir Marg, Dharmpur, Dehradun.  The  time  would  be  1.30  P.M.  to  4.00  P.M.  During  the  hearing  the  persons  would  also be given an opportunity of personal  hearing.  After receiving such objections  and  suggestions  and  after  considering  the same, the final decision to convert  the place into a larger Urban Area will  be taken.”  

It  will  be  clear  from the aforesaid  public  notice  dated  

29.06.2011 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand that  

the Chairman of the Haridwar Municipality, the Councilors  

of  Haridwar  Municipality  and  the  entire  public  who  

ordinarily  reside  in  the  area  were  invited  to  give  their  

objections and suggestions.  It will also be clear from the  

public notice dated 29.06.2011 extracted above that on  

receipt  of  the  written  objections  and  suggestions,  a  

hearing was to be conducted on 13th July 2011 by Principal  

Secretary, Urban Development Department,  Government  

of Uttarakhand between 1.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. and during  

the hearing the persons were to be given an opportunity  

of personal hearing on the objections.  By a subsequent  

corrigendum  the  date  of  hearing  was  altered  to  

16.07.2011.  We further find from paragraph 4 of the order  

dated 19.07.2011 annexed to the counter affidavit filed on

Page 15

15

behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as Annexure C-I that the  

Principal  Secretary  Urban  Development  Department,  

Government of Uttarakhand has provided an opportunity  

of hearing to the objectors on their respective objections  

on 16.07.2011 from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. at Kumbh Fair  

Controlling  House,  Haridwar  and  amongst  the  objectors  

there  were  several  Municipal  Councilors  of  Haridwar  

Municipality,  namely  Dinesh  Joshi,  Rakesh  Prajapati,  

Yashoda Devi,  Leela Devi,  Ashok Sharma, Jagdhir Singh,  

Nikhil Mehta, Idris Ansari, Satya Narayan, Karuna Sharma,  

Sanjay  Sharma,  Radhey  Krishna,  Prabha  Ghai  and  Ram  

Ahuja.  Hence, the appellant, who was the Chairman of the  

Municipal Council,  Haridwar could have also participated  

in the hearing in support of his objections.  We cannot,  

therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of  

the Division Bench of the High Court that an opportunity of  

hearing  was  actually  given  to  all  persons  likely  to  be  

affected by the two notifications dated 21.07.2011.   

13. At  the  time  of  hearing  of  this  appeal,  we  were  

inclined to consider the other contention of Mr. Hansaria  

that the State Government must form an opinion that until

Page 16

16

the due constitution of the Municipal Corporation for an  

area,  “it  is  expedient” to  dissolve the Municipal  Council  

from  a  specified  date  and  to  direct  that  all  powers,  

functions and duties of the Corporation shall as from the  

specified date, be vested in and be exercised, performed  

and  discharged  by  the  Administrator  appointed  by  the  

State Government in view of the language of sub-section  

(1) of Section 8-AA of the Act.  But we find that this ground  

was not raised in the Writ Petition before the High Court  

nor raised in the special leave petition before this Court.  

We  further  find  that  pursuant  to  the  two  notifications  

dated  21.07.2011,  the  elections  to  the  Municipal  

Corporation have been notified to be held and completed  

by 30.04.2013.  Hence, even if the appellant succeeds on  

this  point,  we cannot direct  restoration of  the Haridwar  

Municipality  after  the  constitution  of  the  Municipal  

Corporation, Haridwar. For these reasons, we refrain from  

considering  this  question  in  this  appeal  and  leave  this  

question open to be decided in  some other  appropriate  

case.

Page 17

17

14. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal  

and we accordingly dismiss the same, but without costs.  

.……………………….J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                            (Gyan Sudha Misra) New Delhi, July 01, 2013.