{"id":183591,"date":"1967-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967"},"modified":"2018-02-20T14:57:16","modified_gmt":"2018-02-20T09:27:16","slug":"state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","title":{"rendered":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1398, \t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 732<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ASSAM &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGAUHATI MUNICIPAL, BOARD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/02\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1398\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 732\n\n\nACT:\nAssam  Municipal Act (15 of 1957) s.  298-State\t  Government\nissuing\t  notification\tsuperseding  Municipal\t Board\t for\nincompetence etc.-Notification after considering explanation\nto  show cause notice-Whether opportunity for  oral  hearing\nalso  to  be  given-Whether principles\tof  natural  justice\nviolated-Indication  of\t tentative conclusion  to  supersede\nBoard  given in show cause notice-Whether amounted  to\tpre-\njudging before considering explanation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant issued a notice to the  respondent  Municipal\nBoard  on June 9, 1964, under s. 298 of the Assam  Municipal\nAct  (XV  of 1957) which stated, inter alia that  the  State\nGovernment was of opinion that the Board was incompetent  to\nperform\t its  duties  and  it  had  come  to  the  tentative\nconclusion that the Board should be superseded.\t The charges\nwhich  were the basis of the tenatative conclusion were\t set\nout  in\t the  notice  and the Board was\t asked\tto  give  an\nexplanation  in\t reply\tto  these.   After  considering\t the\nexplanation given by the Board, the State Government  issued\na  notification on her 9, 1964-, superseding the  Board\t for\none  year  with effect from December 14,  1964\tfor  reasons\nwhich were stated in the notification.\nThe  Board thereupon filed a writ petition  challenging\t the\nnotification  on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that   passing\nthe  order of auction the State Government had violated\t the\nprinciples  of natural justice inasmuch as  the\t proceedings\nresulting in supersession being quasi-judicial\tproceedings,\nthe  Board  had been denied the opportunity  of\t being\tper-\nsonally\t heard\tand  of producing evidence;  (ii)  that\t the\ncharges\t which\twere  found proved in  the  notification  of\nDecember  9, 1964 were not the same which were\tthe  subject\nmatter\tof  the notice of June 9, 1964; and (iii)  that\t the\nState Government had already come to the conclusion that the\nBoard  should be superseded when it gave notice on  June  9,\n1964  and  had\tthus pre-judged the issue  even\t before\t the\nexplanation of the Board had been received.  The High  Court\naccepted all these contentions and allowed the petition.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : allowing the appeal\n(i)Even\t assuming  that the proceedings in  question  were\nquasi-judicial\tproceedings, there was no violation  of\t the\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice in  this  case.   What\t the\nsection\t provides  is that a notice should be given  to\t the\nBoard  by  the State Government and  its  explanation  taken\nbefore an order under s. 298 is passed.\t When the provisions\nof s. 298 are fully complied with, is in this case, and\t the\nBoard  does  not  ask  for an  opportunity  for\t a  personal\nhearing,  principles of natural justice do not require\tthat\nthe  State Government should ask the Board to appear  for  a\nhearing\t  and  to  produce  materials  in  support  of\t the\nexplanation. [735 D-F-, 736 C]\n(ii)A\tcareful\t  examination  of  the\t notice\t  and\tthe\nnotification  showed  that  the charges\t found\tproved\twere\nsubstantially the same as the charge levelled. [736 F]\n\t\t\t    733\n(iii)\t  The  High  Court had wrongly used the\t analogy  of\nArt.  311  for the purpose of s. 2,98 in  holding  that\t the\nappellant should not have indicated its tentative conclusion\nin  the notice because s. 298 provides for two courses\tie.,\nsuperssion  or\tdissolution,  and the  appellant  could\t not\ndecide between the two alternatives even tentatively  before\ntaking\tinto  consideration the explanation  of\t the  Board.\nThere  was  no\treason why, when giving\t notice,  the  State\nGovermment  should  not indicate to  the  Board\t tentatively\nwhich  of the two alternatives it iuntends to pursue.\tSuch\ntentative conclusion communicated to the Board does not mean\nthat  the State Government is not open to conviction at\t all\nand  whatever  the  explanation it would pass  an  order  in\naccordance with its tentativ conclusion [737 E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1268  of<br \/>\n1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nMay 21, 1965 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in&#8217;  Civil<br \/>\nRule No. 306 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lai, for the ap-<br \/>\npellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. R. Chaudhuri and B. P.  Singh, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nWanchoo,  J. This is an appeal by special leave against\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the Assam High Court.  The  appellant  is\t the<br \/>\nState  of Assam and the respondent is the Gauhati  Municipal<br \/>\nBoard,\t(hereinafter referred to as the Board).\t  After\t the<br \/>\nmunicipal  election,  new  members of  the  Board  began  to<br \/>\nfunction from July 7, 1962.  The term of the members is four<br \/>\nyears and would in the normal course have expired on July 6,<br \/>\n1966.\tOn June 9, 1964, the appellant issued notice to\t the<br \/>\nBoard  under  s. 298 of the Assam Municipal Act, No.  XV  of<br \/>\n1957  (hereinafter  referred to as the Act).   That  section<br \/>\ngives power to the State Government, if it is of the opinion<br \/>\nthat  a\t Board\tis incompetent to  perform  or\tpersistently<br \/>\nmakes.\tdefault in the performance of the duties imposed  on<br \/>\nit  by or under the Act or otherwise by law, or\t exceeds  or<br \/>\nabuses\tits  powers,  eitherto\tdissolve  the  Board  or  to<br \/>\nsupersede it for a period not exceeding one year at a  time,<br \/>\nand  where dissolution is ordered to order a fresh  election<br \/>\nas soon as possible.  The section further provides that this<br \/>\npower can be exercised by the State Government after  giving<br \/>\nthe  Board an opportunity for submitting its explanation  in<br \/>\nregard\tto  the\t matter in question.   On  receipt  of\tsuch<br \/>\nexplanation,  ,the State Government has to consider  it\t and<br \/>\nthereafter  by notification stating reasons for so doing  it<br \/>\nmay  declare  that the Board is incompetent  to\t perform  or<br \/>\npersistently makes default in the performance of its  duties<br \/>\nor has exceeded or abused its powers.  The, State Government<br \/>\nmay  by\t such  notification  either  dissolve  the,Board  or<br \/>\nsupersede it as already indicated.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">734<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  State Government issued notice to the Board on June  9,<br \/>\n1964.  In this notice the State Government said that it\t was<br \/>\nof the opinion that the Board was incompetent to perform  or<br \/>\nhad  persistently  made default in the\tperformance  of\t the<br \/>\nduties imposed on it by or under the Act or otherwise by law<br \/>\nand  that the Board had abused its powers.  The notice\twent<br \/>\non  to\tsay  that  the State  Government  had  come  to\t the<br \/>\ntentative  conclusion  that the Board should  be  superseded<br \/>\nunder  s. 298 of the Act and asked the Board to\t show  cause<br \/>\nwhy  this should not be done.  The notice also stated  eight<br \/>\ncharges which were the basis of the tentative conclusion  of<br \/>\nthe  State  Government\tand  asked  the\t Board\tto  give  an<br \/>\nexplanation  in\t full with respect to  these  charges.\t The<br \/>\nBoard  gave  the  explanation  on  August  10,\t1964.\tThat<br \/>\nexplanation   was   apparently\tconsidered  by\t the   State<br \/>\nGovernment  and\t on December 9, 1964, the  State  Government<br \/>\nissued\tthe notification superseding the Board for one\tyear<br \/>\nwith  effect from December 14, 1964 for reasons\t which\twere<br \/>\n:stated\t in the notification.  Thereupon the Board  filed  a<br \/>\nwrit  petition\tin the High Court on December  24,  1964  on<br \/>\nvarious\t grounds.   It is however  unnecessary\tfor  present<br \/>\npurposes  to  mention  all the grounds raised  in  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition.  It is sufficient to say that three of the grounds<br \/>\nraised\ttherein\t were  (i)  that in  passing  the  order  of<br \/>\nsupersession  the  State Government had violated  the  prin-<br \/>\nciples\tof  natural justice inasmuch as the Board  had\tbeen<br \/>\ndenied\tthe  opportunity of being personally  heard  and  of<br \/>\nproducing   evidence,  as  the\tproceedings   resulting\t  in<br \/>\nsupersession  were quasijudicial proceedings, (ii) that\t the<br \/>\ncharges\t which\twere  found proved in  the  notification  of<br \/>\nDecember  9, 1964 were not the same which were\tthe  subject<br \/>\nmatter\tof  the notice of June 9, 1964, and (iii)  that\t the<br \/>\nState Government had already come to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nBoard  should be superseded when it gave notice of  June  9,<br \/>\n1964  and  had\tthus prejudged the  issue  even\t before\t the<br \/>\nexplanation of the Board had been received.<br \/>\n The application was opposed by the appellant, and its\tcase<br \/>\nwas  that proceedings resulting in an order under s. 298  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  were\tadministrative proceedings  and\t not  quasi-<br \/>\njudicial proceedings.  In any case even if they were  quasi-<br \/>\njudicial  proceedings, the appellant contended that  it\t had<br \/>\ngiven a hearing to the Board as required by s. 298 and there<br \/>\nwas no violation of the principles of natural justice.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  further contended that the charges found.  proved<br \/>\nwere  the  same as the charges levelled against\t the  Board.<br \/>\nFinally it was contended that though the action to be  taken<br \/>\nwas  tentatively indicated in the notice, the State  Govern-<br \/>\nment had not pre-judged the issue and was open to conviction<br \/>\nafter the receipt of the explanation from the Board.<br \/>\nThe  High Court held that the proceedings culminating in  an<br \/>\norder  under s. 298 of the Act were quasi-judicial and\tthat<br \/>\nthere was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">735<\/span><br \/>\nviolation of the principles of natural justice in this case.<br \/>\nThe  High Court also held that the charges found  proved  in<br \/>\nthe notification of December 9, 1964 were different from the<br \/>\ncharges levelled in the notice June 9, 1964.  The High Court<br \/>\nfinally\t held that the State Government had already made  up<br \/>\nits  mind to supersede the Board when it issued\t notice\t and<br \/>\ntherefore  presumably all the proceedings subsequent to\t the<br \/>\nissue  of  the notice were a farce.  For these\treasons\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the  order<br \/>\nof  December  9, 1964.\tIt is this order of the\t High  Court<br \/>\nwhich is being challenged before us in the present appeal.<br \/>\nI We are of opinion that the appeal must succeed.  We  shall<br \/>\ntake  up three grounds on the basis of which the High  Court<br \/>\nhas allowed the writ petition in the order indicated above.<br \/>\nRe. (i).\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not necessary in the present appeal to decide  whether<br \/>\nthe  proceedings resulting in an order under s. 298  of\t the<br \/>\nAct are quasi-judicial proceedings or merely  administrative<br \/>\nproceedings.  Assuming that the High Court is right that the<br \/>\nproceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings, the question  is<br \/>\nwhether there was any violation of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice\t in this case.\tWhat the section provides is that  a<br \/>\nnotice should be given to the Board by the State  Government<br \/>\nand  its explanation taken before an order under s.  298  is<br \/>\npassed.\t  It  is not disputed that the appellant  had  given<br \/>\nnotice\tto  the Board and had indicated the charges  on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of which it had formed its tentative  conclusion\t and<br \/>\nalso  had  asked  for an explanation from  the\tBoard.\t The<br \/>\nexplanation  was received in August 1964 and  considered  by<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tand thereafter the appellant  by  its  order<br \/>\ndated December 9, 1964 decided to supersede the Board.\t Now<br \/>\nit  is\tclear from these facts that the appellant  acted  in<br \/>\nfull  compliance  with\tthe procedure provided\tin  s.\t298.<br \/>\nOrdinarily  therefore  there is no reason why it  should  be<br \/>\nheld,  when  the procedure provided in s. 298  was  complied<br \/>\nwith, that the principles of natural justice were  violated.<br \/>\nBut the High Court was of the view that the appellant should<br \/>\nhave  given an oral hearing to the Board which\tshould\talso<br \/>\nhave  been given an opportunity to produce materials  before<br \/>\nthe  appellant in support of the explanation.  According  to<br \/>\nthe  High Court, the right of hearing includes the right  to<br \/>\nproduce\t evidence  in  support of an  explanation  and\tthis<br \/>\nopportunity  was not given to the Board.  Here again  it  is<br \/>\nunnecessary to decide whether s. 298 which merely says\tthat<br \/>\nthe  State Government should give opportunity to  the  Board<br \/>\nfor  submitting an explanation in regard to the\t matter\t en-<br \/>\nvisages\t production of evidence-oral or documentary-at\tsome<br \/>\nlater stage by the Board in support of its explanation.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  has  conceded that a personal  hearing  of\t the<br \/>\nnature\tindicated above is not always a concommitant of\t the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">736<\/span><br \/>\njustice.   But it was of the view that in the  present\tcase<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice required that the Board should<br \/>\nhave  been  given a personal hearing and an  opportunity  to<br \/>\nproduce materials in support of the explanation.  We  should<br \/>\nhave  thought  that  when the Board is\tgiven  a  notice  as<br \/>\nrequired by s. 298 it would naturally submit its explanation<br \/>\nsupported  by facts and figures and an relevant material  in<br \/>\nsupport thereof.  However, we are definitely of opinion that<br \/>\nthe provisions of s. 298 being fully complied with it cannot<br \/>\nbe  said that there was violation of principles\t of  natural<br \/>\njustice\t in this case when the Board never demanded what  is<br \/>\ncalled\ta  personal  hearing  and  never  intimated  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  that  it  would like  to  produce  materials  in<br \/>\nsupport\t of its explanation at some later stage.   Therefore<br \/>\nwhere  a provision like s. 298 is fully complied with as  in<br \/>\nthis case and the Board does not ask for an opportunity\t for<br \/>\npersonal  hearing or for production of materials in  support<br \/>\nof  its\t explanation, principles of natural justice  do\t not<br \/>\nrequire\t that the State Government should ask the  Board  to<br \/>\nappear\tfor a personal hearing and to produce  materials  in<br \/>\nsupport of the explanation.  In the absence of any demand by<br \/>\nthe  Board  of the nature indicated above, we  cannot  agree<br \/>\nwith the High Court that merely because the State Government<br \/>\ndid not call upon the Board to appear for a personal hearing<br \/>\nand  to\t produce material in support of its  explanation  it<br \/>\nviolated the principles of natural justice.  This ground  in<br \/>\nsupport of the order of the High Court therefore fails.<br \/>\nRe; (ii)<br \/>\nThen  we  come\tto the finding of the High  Court  that\t the<br \/>\ncharges found proved in the notification were different from<br \/>\nthe  charges levelled in the notice.  We regret to say\tthat<br \/>\nthe  High Court did not carefully look into the matter.\t  If<br \/>\nit  had,  done\tso, it would have found that  there  was  no<br \/>\ndifference  in substance between what was charged  and\twhat<br \/>\nwas  found  proved.   Eight charges were  indicated  in\t the<br \/>\nnotice\tof  June 9, 1964.  Six of them related\tto  acts  of<br \/>\nomission and commission by the Board; the seventh and eighth<br \/>\ncharges\t were mere matters of inference from the  first\t six<br \/>\ncharges and were not strictly speaking charges of which\t any<br \/>\nexplanation was necessary.  In the notification\t superseding<br \/>\nthe  Board the appellant found six charges proved.  We\thave<br \/>\ncompared  the  notification  of December 9,  1964  with\t the<br \/>\nnotice of June 9, 1964. and find that the first charge found<br \/>\nproved\tin  the\t notification is the  third  charge  in\t the<br \/>\nnotice;\t the second charge found proved in the\tnotification<br \/>\nis  the fifth charge in the notice; the third  charge  found<br \/>\nproved\tin  the\t notification is the fourth  charge  in\t the<br \/>\nnotice;\t the fourth charge found proved in the\tnotification<br \/>\nis the second charge<br \/>\nin  the\t notice;  the  fifth  charge  found  proved  in\t the<br \/>\nnotification is the sixth charge in the notice and the sixth<br \/>\ncharge found proved in the notification is the first  charge<br \/>\nin the notice. it will thus be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">737<\/span><br \/>\nseen  that though there was a change in the order  in  which<br \/>\ncharges\t were  enumerated,  the charges\t found\tproved\twere<br \/>\nsubstantially  the  same as the charges levelled.   We\thave<br \/>\nalready indicated that the seventh and eighth charges in the<br \/>\nnotice were really not charges and were mere inferences\t and<br \/>\nthat is why we find no mention of them in the  notification.<br \/>\nThe  view  of the High Court that the  charges\tproved\twere<br \/>\ndifferent from the charges levelled therefore also fails.<br \/>\nRe. (iii)<br \/>\nFinally\t the High Court found that in the notice  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment indicated its tentative conclusion to the  effect<br \/>\nthat the Board should be superseded and thus it had made  up<br \/>\nits mind already even before considering the explanation  of<br \/>\nthe Board that it should be superseded, and that the rest of<br \/>\nthe  proceedings were a farce.\tThe High Court thought\tthat<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tshould\tnot  have  indicated  its  tentative<br \/>\nconclusion  because s. 298 provides for two  courses,  i.e.,<br \/>\nsupersession  or  dissolution, and the appellant  could\t not<br \/>\ndecide between the two alternatives even tentatively  before<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the explanation of the Board.\t  In<br \/>\nthis  connection  the High Court relied on  decisions  under<br \/>\nArt. 311 of the Constitution relating to removal,  dismissal<br \/>\nand reduction in rank of public servants and was  apparently<br \/>\nof  the\t view that the State Government\t should\t first\thave<br \/>\nconsidered  the explanation and then made up its mind as  to<br \/>\nwhich one of the two alternatives provided in s. 298  should<br \/>\nbe  used  and then presumably given a second notice  to\t the<br \/>\nBoard to show cause why one of the alternatives\t tentatively<br \/>\ndecided upon should not be pursued.  We are of opinion\tthat<br \/>\nit  is\tnot correct to use the analogy of Art. 311  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  s. 298 of the Act.\t The issue  of\ttwo  notices<br \/>\nunder  Art. 311 is a very special procedure  depending\tupon<br \/>\nthe  language of that Article.\tWe find no comparable  words<br \/>\nin s. 298.  We also see no reason why when giving notice the<br \/>\nState\tGovernment   should  not  indicate  to\t the   Board<br \/>\ntentatively  which  of the two alternatives  it\t intends  to<br \/>\npursue.\t Such tentative conclusion communicated to the Board<br \/>\ndoes  not  mean\t that the State Government is  not  open  to<br \/>\nconviction at all and whatever the explanation it would pass<br \/>\nan order in accordance with its tentative conclusion.  There<br \/>\nis  therefore  no  reason  to  think  that  all\t proceedings<br \/>\nsubsequent to the issue of notice dated June 9, 1964 were in<br \/>\nthis case a farce.  The third ground on which the High Court<br \/>\ndecided in favour of the respondent must fail.<br \/>\nIt appears that the respondent had secured a stay order\t and<br \/>\npractically  continued\tto function for the full  period  of<br \/>\nfour  years under the cover of the stay order.\t Before\t us,<br \/>\nthough\tthe  respondent has appeared, it did  not  seriously<br \/>\ncontest the appeal, for, the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">738<\/span><br \/>\nperiod\tof all members who took office on July 7, 1962\tcame<br \/>\nto an end on July 6, 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh   Court  and  dismiss  the\t writ  petition.    In\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances we pass no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.K.P.S.\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">739<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1398, 1967 SCR (2) 732 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: STATE OF ASSAM &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: GAUHATI MUNICIPAL, BOARD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/1967 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BACHAWAT, R.S. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2358,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\",\"name\":\"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967","datePublished":"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967"},"wordCount":2358,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967","name":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T09:27:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-assam-anr-vs-gauhati-municipal-board-on-24-february-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Assam &amp; Anr vs Gauhati Municipal, Board on 24 February, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}