K.D. Sharma, Actg. C.J.
1. This is a D B. Special Appeal Sled by the Notified Area Committee, Rawat Bhata and another, arising out of an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 15, 1980. passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1945 of 1979 filed by G.D Mehta against the State of Rajasthan and Ors. This appeal came up for admission before us on July 29, 1980. We heard Mr. H N Calla, Additional Government Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Marudhar Mridul appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record we arc of the view that this appeal is not worth admission for the following reasons The State Government vide its Notification dated February 28, 1975, which was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra, dated March 6, 1975 signified its intention to declare revenue village Rawat Bhata as a Notified Area in exercise of its powers under Section 313 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and invited objections to this notification from the inhabitants of the said specified area within six weeks from the date of its publication. In response to the aforesaid notification, several inhabitants and organizations of the said specified area submitted their objections to the State Government. The respondent No 1 also objected to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Act in the capacity of the General Secretary, Rajasthan Aaushakti Karamchari Saaagarsh Samiti, Rawat Bhata. The State Government, thereafter, vide its notification dated May 12, 1979, published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated August 30, 1979, declared revenue village Rawat Bhata to be a notified area and constituted a Notified Area Committee for that area and further declared that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and the members of the Notified Area Committee would be nominated by the State Government for a period of three years, and the Notified Area Committee would consist of 14 members out of which two members would be persons belonging to a scheduled caste and a scheduled tribe residing in the same area. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated May 12, 1979, the petitioner respondent No. 1, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, by way of a writ petition, and prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued directing the Commercial Taxes Officer, Chittorgarh, not to collect entertainment tax from Mahalaxmi Talkies by treating the Area to be the Notified Area. Later on, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted before the learned Single judge that no relief is claimed against the Commercial Taxes Officer.
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court heard the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, and quashed the notification dated May 12, 1979, declaring revenue village Rawat Bhata to be a Notified area en the ground that there is nothing to show that the objections submitted by the several inhabitants and organizations of that area were duly considered by the State Government and orders were passed on such objections before declaring the said area to be a Notified Area under Sub-section (4) of Section 313 of the Act.
3. Mr. H.N. Calla appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently contended before us that in the instant case the State Government had considered the objections of the objectors and rejected them before declaring the aforesaid area to be a Notified Area and so the learned Single Judge committed a grave error of law in quashing the impugned notification Ii was further urged by him that the State Government was not bound to give a personal hearing to such objector or to pass a speaking order en each objection before declaring the area to be a Notified Area. According to his submission, all that was required by Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 313 of the Act was that the State Government shall take the objections to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Act into consideration and to pass orders on such objections which bad been done by the State Government and therefore, the impugned notification dated May 12, 1979, was not open to challenge on any reasonable score. In support of his above contention, Mr. Calla relied upon Mohd Ibrahim Khan v. State of M. P. : 1SCR792 and Tulsipur Sugar Co. v. Notified Area Committee Tulsipur : 2SCR1111 .
4. Mr. Marudhar Mridul, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on the other hand, contender that the word 'considered' used in Sub-section(4)of Section 313 of the Act mean? an examination of the objections with objectivity other than on mere subjective examination. According to his submission, the State Government in the present case did not consider and piss speaking order on each and t very objection made to the notification dated July 22, 1975 issued by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Act and so the mind of the State Government is not capable of being read as on what grounds the objections had been overruled. In support of his contention, Mr. Marudhar Mridual placed reliance on Ajantha Industries ns. C. Board, Direct Taxes AIR 1976 SC 436 and Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India : AIR1976SC1785 .
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, At the outset we may observe that Sub-section (3) of Section 313 of the Act makes it incumbent on the State Government to consider each and every objection that has been made to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 and to pass orders on such objection before declaring the specified area or any portion thereof to be a notified area. The requirement of consideration of all the objections and of passing orders on them is a mandatory direction under the law which must be complied with by the State Government before declaring a specified area or a portion thereof to be a Notified Area under Sub-section (3) of Section 313 of the Act. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge of this Court rightly held that the Slate Government did not pass orders on each and every objection raised to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Act after giving it due consideration. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court are quoted below:
Moreover, from a perusal of the notings in the file of the State Government, I find that only one of the objections raised by the objectors with regard to the imposition of taxes on account of declaration of revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area has been considered by the authorities and there is nothing to show that the various other objections which were raised by the objections including the petitioner, were given due consideration by the State. Government. In the objections afore aid u was pointed oh; that in Rawat Bhata two projects of the Central Government are under consideration, viz, Rajasthan Atomic Power Project acd Heavy Water Project in which about 3200 employees and 2000 labourers of the contractors are employed and in addition, there are about 700 employees of the Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Irrigation. Department and that the said employees are residing in the labour colonies and other colonies maintained by their respective departments and that the workers would not in any way be benefitted by declaring village Rawat Bhata as a notified area. Another objection that was raised was that the entire area of Rawat Bhata has been declared as protected area for reasons of security and there can be no interference by local bodies in the development of that area and it was pointed out that in the past when Rawat Bhata was declared as notified area sum of Rs. 3 lakhs had been collected as taxes for the development of that area but the said money had remained unutilised because practically there was no land under the notified area Committee.
It was no doubt true that in a particular case there may be hundreds of objections and it may not be possible for the State Government to pass a detailed order on each and every objection but when there is provision in the Ace which requires declaration for inviting objections to the notification under Sub-section (1) of 5.113 of the Act and for consideration of such objections and for passing orders on them before declaring a specified area or any portion-thereof to be a notified area under Sub-section (4) of Section 313 of the Act it is not open for the State Government to contend that substantial compliance with the referred-to-above mandatory provision of the Act was made, if it is mentioned in the declaration itself that the objections were considered and rejected. The State Government ought to have passed at least a speaking under, how so ever brief or short it may be, on each and every objection raised to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Act, so as to show that the objections were considered and dealt with on merits. What was done by the State Government in this case is that; out of the objections raised by the objectors only one objection relating to inevitability of imposition of taxes on account of declaration of the revenue; village Rawat Bhata as a notified area has been considered and dealt with by it. The other objections were not examined on merits, nor any speaking order of rejection was passed on them. The above two authorities of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. H N. Calla, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants are distinguishable because in Tulsipur Sugar Co. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, it was observed that there was no provision in Section 3 of the U. P. Town Area Act (Act No 2 of 1974) which required the State Government to give publicity to its proposal to declare any area as a town area and to make such declaration after considering the objections filed in that behalf by the members of the public In Mohd. Ibrahim Khan v. State of M. P. (1 supra) it was observed that initially when no objection certificate was applied for, the appellants did not object to the grant of such certificate and therefore, they cannot be permitted subsequently to make a grievance to oppose the grant of licence for exhibition of film, Hence in our opinion, the learned Single Judge of this Court committed no error in quashing the notification dated May 12,1979.
6. Mr. H.N. Calla, Additional Government, Advocate put forward another contention before us that the respondent No. 1 is not a person aggrieved by the impugned notification On the other hand, he is a tool in the hands of proprietors of M/s. Mahalaxmi Talkies who failed to file any objection to the declaration into the notification issued under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 313 of the Act. The above contention has been dealt with at length by the learned Single Judge of this Count in his order under appeal. We agree with the observations made by him in his order on this point. They are quoted below with approval:
The submission of the learned Add! Government Advocate is that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition in as much as there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a resident of revenue village Rawat Bhata. In my opinion, there ii no merit in this preliminary objection. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is a resident of Rawatbhata, and is working in the office of Rajasthan Atomi: Power Project During the course of hearing of the writ-petition an affidavit has been filed by Shri. G. M Gupta, close friend of the petitioner, where in it has been stated that the petitioner has been allotted quarter No N. T. G-74 in Rana Pratap Sagar Colony and is residing there for the past 8 years It is also not disputed that in response to the notification dated 29th December, 1977 the petitioner had submitted objections against the declaration of revenue village Rawatbhata as a notified area. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the impugned notification and that he has no locus standi so maintain the writ.
7. The result of the above discussion is that the Special Appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed summarily. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.