Raj Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1142153
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-30-2014
AppellantRaj Kumar and Others
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.11539 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 30.05.2014 raj kumar and others …..petitioners versus state of haryana and others .....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice sanjay kishan kaul,chief justice hon’ble mr.justice arun palli present: mr.vikram singh, advocate for the petitioners .sanjay kishan kaul, chief justice (oral).the petitioners are residents of village nangal chaudhary, district mohindergarh. the village panchayat was in existence. a notification dated 17.1.2013 was issued in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the haryana municipal act, 1973 read with the haryana municipal amendment act, 1994, seeking to declare it as a municipality. it may be stated that the procedure to be followed is not.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11539 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 30.05.2014 Raj Kumar and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners .SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral).The petitioners are residents of village Nangal Chaudhary, District Mohindergarh.

The village Panchayat was in existence.

A notification dated 17.1.2013 was issued in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 read with the Haryana Municipal Amendment Act, 1994, seeking to declare it as a municipality.

It may be stated that the procedure to be followed is not disputed.

That procedure has been followed.

The final notification was issued on 12.6.2013 after inviting objections.

It is at that stage that the petitioners filed CWP No.14716 of 2013 which was disposed of on 12.7.2013 directing the respondents to communicate a decision on a representation made by the petitioneRs.The representation was decided on 24.7.2013.

It is this decision which is now sought to be assailed before us by filing the present writ petition on 29.5.2014.

We may note that in the interregnum period, a writ petition was filed after more Chand Parkash 2014.05.30 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11539-2014 - 2 - than eight months which was withdrawn on 9.4.2013 to file an appropriate petition.

The sum substance of the contentions raised before us by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the village is a small one having various problems like water supply, etc.The population of the village, according to petitioneRs.is about 8000.

This is in the context of the requirement of having not less than 15000 population as per the provisions of Section 2A, sub-section (i) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.

However, the finding is of population of 15326 which is over the benchmark.

Learned counsel now seeks to plead that this population has been wrongly enumerated.

Two factors weigh with us: (i) when preliminary notification was issued and objections invited, only three sets of objections were filed and no objection was filed by the petitioneRs.and (ii) despite the aforesaid, in pursuance to the directions of the Division Bench, the matter was examined again and it was found that the plea of there being population less than 15000 was not correct.

The Court cannot be expected to go and count the village population.

We are, thus, of the view that no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.

( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE3005.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE Chand Parkash 2014.05.30 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document