Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.04.2010 Jai Maa Filling Station ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notification dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by the State Government whereby area comprising in Village Mudki Hadbast No. 174-A Tehsil & District Ferozepur was declared to be a Nagar Panchayat. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification on the ground that land in which the petrol pump is situated has come within the limits of Nagar Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the notification on the ground that procedure as prescribed in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was not followed before the issuance of notification, Annexure P-1. He submits that before publication of notification, objections were required to be invited from the residents of the area with regard to constitution of new Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 2 Gram Panchayat. Learned State counsel has, however, refuted the aforesaid contentions. He submits that under the Act, there is no provision which mandates inviting of objections prior to bringing any particular area within the municipal limits. He has referred to Sections 4 & 5 of the Act in this regard. He further submits that despite this, wide publicity was given before issuance of impugned notification. According to him, notification dated 03.07.2008 and a consequent public notice in Punjabi language was affixed at various places in village to apprise the general public about the intent to declare village Mudki as Nagar Panchayat. The public notice was affixed in Temples, Gurudwaras, Janj Ghar, Dharamsala, etc and extensive Munadi was conducted. According to learned State counsel, Mustil No. 136 in which premises of the petitioner was situated, is the area which has come under the impact of urbanization and thus, has been rightly included in the Nagar Panchayat. He submits that land falling in Mustil Nos. 135 & 137 to which reference has been made in the writ petition are at considerable distance from the area which is subject matter of the impugned notification and thus, same was not included in Nagar Panchayat. Learned State counsel has extensively referred to affidavit filed by Mr. Kavita Mohan Singh Chauhan, Additional Secretary, Local Government, Deptt. Punjab with regard to submissions made before this court. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 (Nagar Panchayat, Mudki) has adopted the arguments addressed by learned State counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 3 It is the stand of the State before this court that extensive publicity was given about the intention to constitute a Nagar Panchayat for village Mudki as the same had come under the impact of urbanization. Reference has been made to a public notice which is stated to have been affixed at various places in the area. This stand of the State remains un-rebutted as no re-joinder has been filed to the reply. This apart, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by declaration of village Mudki as a Nagar Panchayat. The decision appears to have been taken in view of the fact that area which is situated on Amritsar-Faridkot road has come under the impact of urbanization. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the issuance of notification, Annexure P-2. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to quash notification dated 23.10.2008 constituting Nagar Panchayat, Mudki. There is thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. April 22, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE