1. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) - Haryana Municipal Business Bye-laws 1981, Byelaw No.43 - No provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 or the Bylaws thereunder have been brought to the notice of the Court, which authorize the Secretary of the Municipal Council to file an appeal - The Lower Appellate Court has reproduced Bylaw No.43 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws, 1981, which have been formulated under the authority, as provided under Section 31 (1) of the Act - None of the provisions referred therein authorize the Secretary of the Municipal Council to contest any case or file any appeal.  (182) P.L.R.
  2. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S.   2-A - Constituting Municipality or a notification abolishing Municipality is an act of legislation and thus cannot be impugned on the grounds which are available for administrative or quasi-judicial orders - Noticing the difference between the legislative and administrative function - V.K. Kapoor v. State of Haryana 2011 (1)RCR (Civil)15 does not lay down a binding precedent for this Court. (182) P.L.R.
  3. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S.  24 - Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1994, Rule 70(1) - Oath of allegiance - There is nothing to show that 48 hours notice, as required by Rule 70 of the Rules, was served on all members of the committee - Besides, petitioner was administered oath after lapse of period of three months of date of notification - If oath is not taken in the prescribed manner and within the time period prescribed, such oath would be no oath in the eyes of law - A municipal councillor cannot choose time, place, and manner in which he would take oath - In view of statutory provisions, the issue of taking oath cannot be left to whims and fancies of elected representatives - Oath not taken in accordance with rules - Election of as member of Municipal Committee - Quashed. (177) P.L.R.  
  4. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S.  24 - Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1994, Rule 70(1) - Oath of allegiance - There is nothing to show that 48 hours notice, as required by Rule 70 of the Rules, was served on all members of the committee - Besides, petitioner was administered oath after lapse of period of three months of date of notification - If oath is not taken in the prescribed manner and within the time period prescribed, such oath would be no oath in the eyes of law - A municipal councillor cannot choose time, place, and manner in which he would take oath - In view of statutory provisions, the issue of taking oath cannot be left to whims and fancies of elected representatives - Oath not taken in accordance with rules - Election of as member of Municipal Committee - Quashed. Baldev Krishan Mittal  v. State of Haryana . (177) P.L.R.  
  5. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S.  75(2), (3) - State Government enhancing the rate of octroi - It admitted that neither has the Municipal Committee passed a resolution under Section 75(2) of the Act nor has the State Government passed an order under Section 75 (3) of the Act - The absence of a resolution under Section 75(2) of the Act or an order under Section 75(3) of the Act, did not empower officers of the Municipal Council to demand octroi at enhanced rates and, therefore, renders demand of octroi at enhanced rates and tax so collected null and void for want of statutory sanction. (175) P.L.R.  
  6. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S. 203 - Present case, the evidence on record is suggestive of the fact that plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land though the purpose of scheme was to ear-mark the site for Municipal Park, but even if the scheme is implemented in terms of different instances as given in the application for additional evidence, but still the possession of the land in question remained with the plaintiff-appellant and this fact has been admitted - Question of implementation within 5 years from 1975 expired in the year 1980 and if the possession still remained with the plaintiff-appellant - Municipal Committee would be at liberty to acquire the land in question in order to give effect to the scheme which is proved to have been implemented in different instances. (181) P.L.R.  
  7. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S. 203(6) - TP Scheme - As per the evidence brought on record, 90% of the scheme has been implemented and more than one thousand houses have been built as per the scheme and layout plan - The site plans of the houses were duly got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee - Three streets as per the plan have been constructed by the Municipal Committee after the year 2004 - This clearly shows that the process for implementing the scheme is continuing and the scheme is still alive - The Municipal Committee should have, as per the statutory requirements, given effect to the scheme and the  responsibilities scheme - Could not be denotified.(181) P.L.R.  
  8. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S. 208 - Demolition of construction - Notice to the plaintiff was not only time barred but also vague, as construction was raised in the year 1978 and notice was issued after 25 years of the alleged construction without disclosing as to which and how much part of construction was to be demolished - Such a construction cannot be demolished specifically when the notice is vague and construction is old. (175) P.L.R.  
  9. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973) S. 246, 253 - Haryana Municipal Rules, 1976, Rule 4 - Jurisdiction - Suit was maintainable at the instance of an individual belonging to the same town who could have the interest in participating in the auction of public property. Held, that the suit was maintainable at the instance of an individual belonging to the same town who could have the interest in participating in the auction of public property. The Courts below have not granted the decree directing MC to allot the disputed site to respondent No. 1-plaintiff. It was simply directed to put the shop to public auction. The effort of respondent No. 1-plaintiff in saving public property being alienated in a clandestine way rather deserves some appreciation. (178) P.L.R.