Case Background
The case arose from a government move to change the local governance structure in Rajgir, in Nalanda district, Bihar.
On 26 December 2020, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Through this notification, the State announced its intention to upgrade Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, and create a larger urban body called Municipal Council, Rajgir, by including additional villages.
Three residents of village Hasanpur, which earlier formed part of Gram Panchayat Nahub, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court. They asked the Court to quash the 26 December 2020 notification, arguing that the upgradation process was illegal.
While the writ case was pending, the State issued a final notification on 3 March 2021 under Section 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. This notification formally upgraded Rajgir Nagar Panchayat into Municipal Council, Rajgir, and included certain surrounding villages, including Hasanpur. The petitioners then filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 01 of 2021) to also challenge this final notification.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad. The CAV judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad and delivered on 11 March 2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners attacked the State’s decision on several grounds, all centered on alleged violation of procedure and misuse of power while upgrading the Nagar Panchayat to a Municipal Council.
First, they argued that the authorities had not held consultation with Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir as required under Section 8 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. According to them, without this consultation, the decision to upgrade was invalid.
Second, they claimed that the Gram Panchayats concerned were not consulted before including areas from 11 villages into the proposed municipal area. This, they said, violated Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Third, they contended that there had been no proper enquiry under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, which requires the State to examine certain parameters like population, density, economic activity and revenue before declaring or altering a municipal area.
Fourth, they focused specifically on village Hasanpur. They said most residents of Hasanpur were agriculturists and that the village had 62.96% main workers and cultivator workers as per the 2011 census. According to them, including Hasanpur while leaving out other contiguous villages was based on extraneous considerations and violated the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Municipal Act, which deals with areas predominantly occupied by agricultural workers.
Fifth, they attacked the final notification dated 3 March 2021 issued under Section 6. The notification briefly recorded that objections had been considered but did not give detailed reasons. The petitioners claimed this made it a “non-speaking order”, contrary to Section 5 of the Municipal Act, which obliges the State to consider objections before issuing the final notification.
Sixth, they submitted that objections filed by inhabitants were considered only by a District Level Committee and the District Magistrate, and not by the State Government itself. On this basis, they argued that the entire process of upgradation and constitution of the Municipal Council was contrary to the Act.
To support their challenge, the petitioners relied on Supreme Court and Patna High Court decisions including Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1987) 2 SCC 510, and two earlier Patna High Court rulings reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 583 and 2011 (1) PLJR 401.
On the other side, the Urban Development and Housing Department (respondent nos. 2 and 3) and Gram Panchayat Raj Nahub (respondent no. 8) filed counter affidavits. The Department placed several official communications on record to show that the statutory procedure had been followed.
The Department stated that on 13 December 2020 it had written to all District Magistrates asking for proposals for new urban local bodies or upgradation of existing ones, based on parameters under Sections 3 and 7 of the Municipal Act. The proposals were to be examined in a workshop-cum-review meeting and then scrutinised at departmental level with inputs from various districts.
The counter affidavit further showed that a District Level Committee examined the proposal for Rajgir, assessed it against the statutory parameters and forwarded it. Based on this enquiry under Section 3(1), and after satisfaction regarding Sections 3 and 7, the State issued the 26 December 2020 notification under Sections 4 and 8, declaring its intention to constitute a larger Municipal area and upgrade Rajgir Nagar Panchayat.
After the intention notification, objections, including those of the petitioners, were received under Section 5 of the Act. These were sent to the concerned District Magistrates, including the District Magistrate, Nalanda, for examination and recommendations.
The District Magistrate, Nalanda, by communication dated 30 January 2021 (Annexure-F), considered objections and suggestions and forwarded his recommendations to the Principal Secretary of the Department. The Department then considered these inputs at its own level. After this process under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, the Governor issued the final notification dated 3 March 2021 upgrading Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir into Municipal Council, Rajgir, including certain contiguous villages.
Importantly, the petitioners did not file any rejoinder to specifically deny or dispute the factual statements and documents annexed to the counter affidavits. The Court noted that these factual assertions, having gone uncontroverted, had to be accepted.
On this basis, the Court held that the upgradation was carried out after the enquiry required under Section 3(1) and on satisfaction of the parameters laid down in Sections 3 and 7. It also held that the procedure of publishing intention, inviting and considering objections and then issuing the final notification, as laid down in Sections 4, 5 and 6, had been strictly followed. The Court observed that by issuing the notification under Section 4, adequate opportunity was given to everyone, including Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, to submit objections or suggestions. The second proviso to Section 8, which relates to the Nagar Panchayat’s role, was thus complied with.
Regarding the alleged need to consult Gram Panchayats under Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the Court relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment in Usha Devi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 7446 of 2021. In that case, the Court had interpreted Section 1 of the Panchayat Raj Act, as amended, to hold that the Panchayat Act does not apply to areas where the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 applies. The Bench in Usha Devi concluded that once a notification is issued under Section 4 of the Municipal Act declaring intention to constitute a municipal area, the Panchayat Raj Act and the tenure of Mukhiya cannot stand in the way of the upgradation process.
Following that reasoning, the Court in the present case held that the petition based on Section 11 of the Panchayat Act was misconceived. Once the Municipal Act was brought into play by the Section 4 notification dated 26 December 2020, the Panchayat provisions ceased to apply.
On the challenge relating to village Hasanpur and the proportion of agricultural workers, the Court again referred to Usha Devi. In that decision, the Division Bench had held that the parameters under Sections 3 and 7 of the Municipal Act must be satisfied for the entire proposed municipal area as a whole, not for each individual Gram Panchayat or village that is being merged. The Court had clearly rejected the argument that each constituent village must separately meet the percentage of non-agricultural workers or other urban criteria.
Applying that settled position, the Court held that the petitioners’ objection, based on the composition of workers in Hasanpur alone, was “misconceived and fallacious”. The requirement is to examine the urban character of the total area that will become the Municipal Council, not each individual revenue village.
On the contention that the final notification under Section 6 was a non-speaking order and that objections were not properly decided, the Court once again relied on the Usha Devi ruling. In that case, the Division Bench had analysed Chapter II of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and held that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are essentially legislative in nature, rooted in Article 243Q of the Constitution.
Quoting in detail from Usha Devi, which itself had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1989) 3 SCC 396, the Court reiterated that when the government establishes or upgrades a municipal area, it is not performing an adjudicatory or purely administrative function. It is exercising a legislative power. For such legislative functions, rules of natural justice like personal hearing and detailed, reasoned orders do not apply unless the statute expressly requires them.
Chapter II of the Municipal Act only requires the State to invite written objections and to “take such objection into consideration” before issuing the final notification. It does not require the State to pass individual reasoned orders on each objection. Therefore, the argument that the notification under Section 6 is bad for not assigning reasons was rejected.
Similarly, the practice of routing objections through the District Magistrate and District Level Committee, with final consideration at the departmental level before the Governor issues the notification, was held to be consistent with the statute. The Court found no procedural illegality in this method.
After dealing with each ground, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ submissions were “devoid of any merit”. It held that there was no factual or legal basis to interfere with the notifications dated 26 December 2020 and 3 March 2021. The entire procedure under Chapter II of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 had been followed, and the precedent in Usha Devi squarely covered the issues raised.
Finally, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the State’s decision to constitute Municipal Council, Rajgir.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for residents of rural and semi-urban areas in Bihar who may face changes in their local governance structure.
First, it confirms that once the State issues a notification of intention under Section 4 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 no longer controls that area. Gram Panchayats and their elected bodies cannot block or stall the process merely by relying on their tenure or Panchayat provisions.
Second, it clarifies that the State is required to invite and consider written objections, but is not bound to provide individual hearings or detailed reasoned orders when upgrading or constituting municipal areas. The process is treated as legislative, not adjudicatory.
Third, people objecting to inclusion of individual villages cannot succeed simply by showing that their particular village is largely agricultural. The Court has held that the statutory parameters apply to the proposed municipal area as a whole, not to each village separately.
Overall, the decision strengthens the State Government’s powers under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 to redraw and upgrade urban local bodies like Nagar Panchayats into Municipal Councils, so long as the broad statutory steps of enquiry, publication of intention, inviting objections and final notification are followed.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Did the State violate the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 while upgrading Rajgir Nagar Panchayat into Municipal Council, Rajgir and including surrounding villages, particularly Hasanpur?
Answer: No. The Court held that an enquiry under Section 3(1) was conducted, parameters under Sections 3 and 7 were satisfied, and the procedure under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8, including publication of intention and consideration of objections, was properly followed. -
Issue: Could residents and Gram Panchayats rely on Section 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and agricultural character of an individual village to block inclusion in the Municipal Council?
Answer: No. Following Usha Devi, the Court held that once a Section 4 notification under the Municipal Act is issued, the Panchayat Act ceases to apply, and statutory parameters relate to the proposed municipal area as a whole, not each individual village. -
Issue: Was the final notification under Section 6 invalid for being a non-speaking order and for not personally deciding objections at State Government level?
Answer: No. Relying on Usha Devi and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija, the Court held that such notifications are legislative in nature; natural justice and detailed reasons are not required, and the process of routing objections through the District Magistrate with departmental consideration is permissible.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Usha Devi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 7446 of 2021 (Division Bench, Patna High Court)
- Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Others v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Others, (1989) 3 SCC 396
- The petitioners also cited Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 510; 2010 (4) PLJR 583; and 2011 (1) PLJR 401, but the Court’s reasoning primarily rested on Usha Devi and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4394 of 2021
Case Title: Shyamsundra Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 189
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 11-03-2022
Nature of Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 regarding upgradation of Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir to Municipal Council, Rajgir
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate with Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State of Bihar: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
For Nagar Panchayat Rajgir: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Gram Panchayat Raj Nahub: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
