ORDER
A.K. Rajan, J.
1. This writ petition is for a declaration that G.O. dated 31.3.1994 as null and void and other consequential reliefs.
2. In the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is the President of the Srirangam People’s Welfare Association. Srirangam is a historical place and also it has got its own religious importance. It was constituted as a Municipality under the Madras District Municipalities Act, in the year 1886. From 1971 onwards, there is no election for the Municipality. Since election was not held, Union of India amended the Constitution of India by incorporating Articles 243-A to 243-ZG which deal with the elections to the Village Panchayats and conduct of elections to the Municipalities and Municipal Corporation and thereby Panchayat Raj and Nagarpalika Bills were introduced. The main object of this enactment is to make the election process compulsory. In so far as the constitution and powers of the Municipal Corporations, other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration are concerned, they are exclusively vested with the State. The State of Tamil Nadu, in pursuance of such powers enacted laws relating to District Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. Under the Constitution, such power was originally given to the State to enact laws relating to local self-government of Panchayats, Municipalities. After the amendment to the Constitution and introduction of Articles 243-A to ZG, it is only the Governor who has the power to notify for Village Panchayats, Municipalities or Corporation. Even before the amendment to the Constitution, a bill was adopted by the State Assembly on 17.5.1994 and the Tamil Nadu Act came into force. Even before that, the State Government issued a notification including Srirangam Municipality along with some other local bodies in Trichy Municipality limits. The first respondent got powers under Section 4(1)(a) to constitute a Municipality. After the amendments, only the Governor have powers. Before deciding to abolish Srirangam Municipality, notice should be given and resolution should be approved by the legislature. The abolition notification should contain its reason for the same. Under the amended Tamil Nadu Act 5/1920 as contemplated in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, the State Legislature has empowered the Governor to constitute a Municipality to include or exclude local areas from the Municipality. Though the Amending Act came into force with effect from 31.5.1994, it is a retrospective legislation and the Governor alone has got the power to constitute Municipality. In view of the amendment with retrospective effect, notification issued on 31.5.1994 is invalid and therefore, the first respondent have no power to include Srirangam Municipality with Trichy Municipality. Srirangam Traders Association objected for inclusion of Srirangam with Trichy Municipality even in the year 1974. Therefore, the inclusion of Srirangam Municipality with Trichy Municipality is not in accordance with law and therefore, the writ petition has filed for a declaration that G.O.Ms.109, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 31.3.1994 as void and invalid and also to declare the Section 2 (a) and Section (3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 27/94 beyond the legislative powers of the first and second respondents.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the unamended Section 4(1) of the Act, the State Government have the power to notify or delete any particular portion from the Municipality Act and that after the amendment to that Section, only the Governor has that power. Therefore, it is for the Governor to call for that and to consider them and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, inclusion of Srirangam Municipality to Trichy Municipality is invalid. In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment in The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (1994(1)L.W. 145). This case relates to sanction of prosecution of the public servants. There the Court has held the decision of the Governor to sanction for prosecution is not the same that is specified under Article 361 and it is a different power. Relying upon this, the counsel argued that since this is a matter where the Governor has to get objections from the people in that area, he has to consider them personally and then only issue the order. Since no such steps were taken by the Governor, the entire notification becomes invalid. In the impugned G.O. Dated 31.3.1994, it is stated that,
” In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares that the areas specified in the schedule below shall be included within the Tiruchirapalli Municipal limits and shall form part of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality with effect on and from the 1st April 1994. ”
This itself is sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 4(1). Inasmuch as the notification has given the particulars, the Constitutional requirements are satisfied and there is no illegality in the notification. The second prayer to declare that Section 2(a) and Section (3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 27/94 are beyond the legislative powers of the first and the second respondents cannot be granted. In view of the fact that the Corporation Act has been passed by the State Legislature exercising the power conferred under Entry-5, List-II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution.
4. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is devoid of any merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.