H.L Gokhale, C.J:— Heard Sri A.S Diwekar in support of this petition. Sri Y.K Srivastava, learned standing Counsel for the State appears for the respondents. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since the question involved is a short question, Sri Srivastava has agreed that the matter be heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner herein is a Municipal Council situated in district Jalaun. The petitioner has been following its bye-laws which have been framed under the U.P Municipalities Act, 1916 and as per the previous directions of the State Government and the authorities concerned. These bye-laws have been framed way back on 18th March, 1987. As per Clause 18 of these bye laws the number of the registered contractors is restricted to ten, therefore, the Municipal Council cancelled the registration of the contractors who were in excess over this number. Now the District Magistrate has issued an order on 18th June, 2008 interfering with this decision of the petitioner—Municipal Council. This order is in two paragraphs. The first paragraph says that earlier orders to restrict the number of contractors is being rescinded as per oral instructions of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. Accordingly, the order of the petitioner-Municipal Council to restrict the number of contractors is set aside. The second paragraph of the order states that this order is being issued so that there is transparency in the works which are being executed and so that all those contractors who are registered and who fulfill the necessary conditions get an opportunity to participate in such contract.
3. Sri A.S Diwekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the first paragraph of the order is concerned, it clearly says that the District Magistrate was passing order on the oral instructions of the Principal Secretary and there was no executive or legislative order to nullify the bye-laws which were issued by the Municipal Council. He also has a grievance as far as the second paragraph is concerned. Since the number of contractors registered is to be ten, which itself is quite a large number, the decision taken earlier is in the interest of Municipal Council which is to register only a restricted number of contractors from amongst those who have competence.
4. Sri Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P submits that reference to the concerned section i.e section 298(2)(f)(b) of the concerned U.P Municipalities Act is erroneous.
5. Now, as far as this aspect is concerned, the order of the District Magistrate dated 18th June, 2008 does not say that. That apart, by such oral instructions of the Principal Secretary, the bye-laws of the Municipal Council cannot be set aside by the District Magistrate. The municipal bodies now have a status under the Constitution and the State Government or its officers cannot interfere in this fashion to nullify the bye laws which have been existing and operating for the last more than 21 years.
6. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated 18th June, 2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun. We may, however, add that in the event the authorities of the State deem it fit to pass appropriate orders on the subject concerned, they may do so only in accordance with law and after following the due procedure contemplated.
7. The Rule is made absolute as above. No costs.
Petition Allowed.
Comments