Summary
The Supreme Court held unconstitutional the initial notification upgrading Napasar Gram Panchayat into a municipality because Rajasthan had not first issued a notification satisfying Article 243Q(2). Municipal classification required uniform State-wide parameters taking account of the constitutionally specified factors; population-only statutory notifications did not suffice. The constitutional flaw affected the subsequent State actions and rendered the challenged High Court judgments per incuriam. Unsupported fears that industries might relocate did not justify preserving the defective exercise.
Issues
- Whether municipal upgradation was valid without a notification satisfying Article 243Q(2).
- Whether population-only classifications fulfilled the constitutional requirements.
- Whether the Court could examine the controlling constitutional defect although it had not been raised below.
Provisions considered
- Article 243Q, Constitution of IndiaThe provision distinguishes transitional, smaller urban and larger urban areas. Its notification requirement obliges consideration of population, density, revenue, non-agricultural employment, economic importance and other relevant factors. Uniform parameters had to precede constitution of the municipal body. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The Governor did not possess absolute discretion to classify areas. Article 243Q(2) required parameters determined with due regard to its listed factors and uniformly applicable across the State, followed by constitution of the appropriate municipal bodies. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The 1995 and 2012 notifications relied on by Rajasthan arose under municipal statutes and classified municipalities only by population. Their tenor and omission of the other constitutional factors meant they could not serve as Article 243Q(2) notifications. (¶ 10)
- Without the requisite constitutional notification, the initial Napasar upgradation of 6 October 2008 was unsustainable. Subsequent actions rested on the same fundamental flaw, and the High Court judgments overlooking the constitutional scheme were per incuriam. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Failure of litigants to point out the controlling constitutional provisions did not prevent the Court from applying them. Courts must take notice of the Constitution and laws when examining the legality of the process challenged. (¶ 11)
- The asserted possibility of industries leaving after reversion to Gram Panchayat status had no foundation in the pleadings or demonstrated reason. That apprehension did not save the unconstitutional exercise. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals disposed of accordingly. Initial notification dated 6 October 2008 held unconstitutional; subsequent State actions suffered the same foundational flaw and the impugned High Court judgments were held per incuriam.