Case Background
The dispute relates to the decision of the State of Bihar to constitute Bihta Nagar Parishad under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Earlier, in 2008, the Block Development Officer, Bihta, had recommended to the District Magistrate, Patna, that Bihta Nagar Panchayat be created. The proposal covered several villages including Bihta, Olhanpura, Sri Rampur, Patsa, Khedalpura, Amhara, Raghopur, Banwaripur, Bishambharpur, Gokhulpur Korhar and Mahadeopur Fulari, with a population of 37,058 on the basis of the 2011 census.
The District Magistrate, Patna forwarded this recommendation to the State Government on 21.10.2008. On that basis, the Urban Development and Housing Department issued a notification under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad.
That earlier notification dated 20.05.2009 was challenged before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 14585 of 2009. By judgment dated 14.02.2011, the Court set aside the notification because the statutory requirements of Section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 had not been followed.
The Court then had found that the final notification did not state whether any objections were received, whether they were considered, and if so how. Due to this non-compliance, the earlier constitution of Bihta Nagar Parishad was quashed.
Subsequently, on 12.05.2020, the State Government brought in the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, later enacted and notified on 10.08.2020. Section 3 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 was amended. The new second proviso to Section 3(1) provided that the total population of main cultivator workers and marginal cultivator workers shall be below 50% of the total population of workers in such areas in all cases.
This change meant that the earlier requirement relating to a high percentage of non-agricultural population for declaring an area as municipal was done away with. In light of this amendment, the State Government again moved to create or upgrade urban local bodies.
The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, by memo dated 14.05.2020, requested all District Magistrates to send proposals for constituting new municipal bodies or upgrading existing ones under their districts, based on the amended Section 3. Again, District Magistrates were reminded to submit proposals for reconstitution and up-gradation of urban local bodies.
Proposals were received from various districts, including Patna. On that basis, the Urban Development and Housing Department issued draft notifications, including the draft relating to Bihta, dated 26.12.2020, showing the intention to constitute new urban local bodies and upgrade existing ones.
In the Bihta case, a joint report dated 19.12.2020 was prepared by the Block Statistical Officer, Bihta, the Circle Officer, Bihta, and the Block Development Officer, Bihta. This report, along with maps and related data, supported the constitution of Bihta Nagar Parishad in view of increasing urbanisation in the panchayats and the need for better development.
On 26.12.2020, a draft notification was issued by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, inviting objections to the proposal to constitute Bihta Nagar Parishad. This draft was published as a public notice in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran on 27.12.2020.
The petitioners, residents of village Amhara in Bihta, filed objections against the draft publication. The proposal covered 11 revenue villages: Bihta, Raghopur, Alhanpura, Banwaripur, Shrirampur, Bishambharpur, Patsa, Gokhulpur-Korhar, Khedalpura, Mahadeopur Fulari and Amhara.
Despite these objections, the State Government issued the final notification under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 vide memo no. 960 dated 03.03.2021, signed by the Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. This notification formally constituted Bihta Nagar Parishad and applied the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 to the area and its residents.
The petitioners then filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5068 of 2021 before the Patna High Court, initially challenging the recommendations of the Block Development Officer and Circle Officer and the draft notification dated 26.12.2020. During the proceedings, after the final notification dated 03.03.2021 was issued, the petitioners amended their writ petition to also challenge this final notification. The amendment was allowed by order dated 16.07.2021.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core complaint of the petitioners was that their detailed written objections to the draft notification dated 26.12.2020 had not been considered by the State Government before issuing the final notification on 03.03.2021.
According to them, a bare reading of the final notification under Section 6 did not show any discussion or reference to the objections. They argued that this showed non-compliance with Section 5 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, which requires the State Government to take objections into consideration.
They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, to argue that reasons must be recorded when deciding objections.
On the other hand, the State, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, explained in detail the process followed after the 2020 amendment to the Bihar Municipal Act.
The State pointed out that the Governor of Bihar had promulgated the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 on 12.05.2020 under Article 213(1) of the Constitution. Section 3 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 was amended and the new proviso fixed the ceiling of cultivator workers at below 50% of total workers in such areas.
After this change, the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, wrote to all District Magistrates on 14.05.2020 asking for proposals for new municipal bodies and up-gradation of old ones. Later, another request went for reconstitution and up-gradation of urban local bodies.
Following these directions, proposals, including that for Bihta, were sent to the Department. In Bihta’s case, the joint report dated 19.12.2020 by local officers supported the creation of Bihta Nagar Parishad. The report showed that urbanisation was increasing across different panchayats and municipal status was needed for proper development.
On population figures, the State submitted that the proposed Nagar Parishad had a population of 47,549 according to the latest census. Total workers were 13,638, with 1,054 main cultivator workers and 324 marginal cultivator workers. Thus, cultivators formed only 10.10% of total workers, well below the 50% limit under the amended Section 3.
The State further stated that after the public notice was issued and published on 27.12.2020, objections were received. These were considered according to guidelines issued by the State Government by letter dated 20.05.2020.
A three-member committee consisting of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur, the Circle Officer, Bihta, and the Block Development Officer, Bihta, conducted an inquiry into the objections relating to Bihta Nagar Parishad. They submitted a detailed report on 30.01.2021 to the District Planning Officer, Patna.
Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Patna, wrote to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department on 02.02.2021. In this letter he explained how the objections had been disposed of, in light of various inquiry reports, and recommended issuing the final notification constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad.
On the legal issue, the Court identified that the petitioners were raising only one point: that there was non-compliance of Section 5 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, because the final notification did not show consideration of objections.
Section 5 of the Act, as reproduced by the Court, says that any inhabitant of the city, town or Nagar Panchayat concerned may submit objections within one month of publication of a notification under Section 4, and “the State Government shall take such objection into consideration.”
To verify the petitioners’ claim, the Court itself called for the original records from the office of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department by order dated 10.08.2021. The file was produced by the Standing Counsel.
On examining the records, the Court found that after publication of the draft notification and public notice, the objections were indeed considered by a high-level team. A joint inquiry report dated 30.01.2021 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Masaurhi, the Block Development Officer, Masaurhi, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi.
This report dealt with all objections, recorded inspections and inspection notes for each objection, and concluded that the objections and claims were unfounded and fit to be rejected.
The Court also found that some other objections had been received in the meantime. These were examined by another team, including the Block Agricultural Officer, Sampatchak, the Circle Officer, Sampatchak, and the Block Development Officer, Sampatchak. Their joint report dated 03.01.2021 examined the objections in detail and rejected them as unfounded.
According to the Court, several such reports by different officials formed part of the record. Each report showed that objections and claims were considered and held to be without substance, and thus rejected.
The District Magistrate’s letter dated 02.02.2021 to the Principal Secretary was particularly important. It summarised the objections received to the draft notification dated 26.12.2020, recorded that inquiry reports had been obtained and considered, and recommended that final publication be made as per the draft notification.
The Court noted that this recommendation was examined not only by the Principal Secretary but also by the Departmental Minister, who endorsed the District Magistrate’s suggestion and recommended final publication of the notification.
On this basis, the Court held that the State Government had duly considered the objections, claims and representations submitted against the draft notification.
The Court then turned to Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, which deals with constitution of municipal areas. Section 6 states that after one month from publication of the draft notification under Section 4, and “after consideration of all or any of the objections which may be submitted”, the State Government may issue a notification constituting the municipal area.
Reading Sections 5 and 6 together, the Court held that the law only requires the State Government to take the objections into consideration before issuing the final notification. It does not mandate that detailed reasons disposing of each objection must be recorded in the notification itself.
The Court observed that, unless a statute specifically requires that objections be disposed of by a reasoned order, such a requirement cannot be inferred. To support this principle, the Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 SCC 403, and Ram Deen Morya (Dr.) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 6 SCC 735.
In light of these authorities, the Court held that the decision relied on by the petitioners, M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., did not apply to the facts of this case. The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 only required consideration, which had undeniably taken place on the record.
The Court concluded that, once the State Government had considered the objections and this fact was also recorded in the impugned notification dated 03.03.2021, there was no illegality or impediment in issuing the final notification under Section 6.
The Court found that the petitioners had failed to show any violation of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. It held that the State had fulfilled its statutory obligation and validly issued the final notification constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for villagers, local representatives and activists across Bihar who may wish to object to creation or up-gradation of municipal bodies.
The Patna High Court has clarified that while people do have a right to submit objections under Section 5 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, the law only requires the State Government to “consider” those objections before taking a final decision.
The Government is not required to mention each objection or give detailed reasons in the final notification itself, unless the law specifically asks for such a reasoned order. What matters is whether the file shows that objections were placed before competent authorities, inquiries were conducted, and a decision was taken after such consideration.
In this case, because multiple inquiry reports were prepared, inspections were carried out, and the District Magistrate, Principal Secretary and Minister all looked at the matter before issuing the final notification, the Court accepted that the legal requirement had been satisfied.
For residents opposing municipal status, the judgment shows that courts will not interfere merely because the notification is brief or silent about objections, so long as the internal records prove due consideration.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the final notification dated 03.03.2021 constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad was invalid for non-compliance of Section 5 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, on the ground that villagers’ objections were not considered or reasons were not recorded.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the State Government had duly considered all objections before issuing the notification, and that the Act does not require a reasoned order on each objection or mention of objections in the notification itself.
Cases Cited by the Court
- M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496 – cited by petitioners; held to be inapplicable.
- Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 SCC 403 – relied upon by the Court on the principle that reasons are not required unless the statute so provides.
- Ram Deen Morya (Dr.) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 6 SCC 735 – relied upon by the Court on the same principle.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5068 of 2021
Case Title: Kumar Amitabh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 535
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 24.12.2021
Advocates: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Abbas Haider, Standing Counsel-6 for the respondent-State.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging draft and final notifications constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Impugned Notification: Memo no. 960 dated 03.03.2021 issued under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, constituting Bihta Nagar Parishad.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTA2OCMyMDIxIzEjTg==-58A–am1–ByOSvlY=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
