U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 — Sections 8-AA & 3(2) — Dissolution of Municipality and appointment of Administrator — Question of discharge of function by Administrator, Not raised in previous proceedings, Effect of — Held, at the time of hearing of this appeal, court was inclined to consider the contention that State Government must form an opinion that until 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 — But this ground was not raised in the Writ Petition before the High Court nor raised in the special leave petition before this Court — Pursuant to the two notifications, the elections to the Municipal Corporation notified to be held — Hence, even if the appellant succeeds on this point, court cannot direct restoration of the Haridwar Municipality after the constitution of the Municipal Corporation — Question open to be decided in some other appropriate case. (Para 13) Kamal Jora v. State of Uttarakhand[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 4835/2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1889/2012)(01/07/2013), 2013(7) SCALE 607: 2013(9) JT 229 [A.K. Patnaik, J.: Gyan Sudha Misra, J.]

August 28th, 2013

U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 — Sections 8-AA & 3(2) — Dissolution of Municipality and appointment of Administrator — Question of discharge of function by Administrator, Not raised in previous proceedings, Effect of — Held, at the time of hearing of this appeal, court was inclined to consider the contention that State Government must form an opinion that until 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 — But this ground was not raised in the Writ Petition before the High Court nor raised in the special leave petition before this Court — Pursuant to the two notifications, the elections to the Municipal Corporation notified to be held — Hence, even if the appellant succeeds on this point, court cannot direct restoration of the Haridwar Municipality after the constitution of the Municipal Corporation — Question open to be decided in some other appropriate case.

(Para 13)

Kamal Jora v. State of Uttarakhand[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 4835/2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1889/2012)(01/07/2013), 2013(7) SCALE 607: 2013(9) JT 229 [A.K. Patnaik, J.: Gyan Sudha Misra, J.]

Entry Filed under: Legal Updates