Gauhati High Court Dismisses PIL on Itanagar Mayor Reservation, Imposes Costs for Concealing Facts

Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh – The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reservation of the Mayor's post in the Itanagar Municipal Corporation (IMC) for women, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner for suppressing material facts. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pranjal Das, affirmed that executive action to implement a statute is valid even in the absence of specific rules framed by the legislature.

---

Case Background

The PIL was filed by Bharat Cheda, who challenged a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the Itanagar Capital Region that reserved the post of Mayor for a woman through a "draw of lots." The petitioner contended that this action was illegal as the "manner" for such reservation had not been prescribed by the legislature, as required by the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions: Mr. T. Pertin, counsel for the petitioner, argued that any reservation process must be explicitly laid out by the Legislature. He invoked the legal principle established in Nazir Ahmed , which states that if a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. The petitioner also claimed the meeting notice for the Mayor's election was issued under an incorrect section of the Act, rendering the process void.

State's Defence: Mr. S. Tapin, Senior Government Advocate, opposed the PIL, arguing that the executive is not precluded from exercising powers conferred by a statute merely because specific rules have not yet been framed. He relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Surinder Singh v. Central Government , to support the state's actions.

Court's Rationale and Key Findings

The High Court systematically addressed the issues and found the PIL to be devoid of merit on multiple grounds.

1. Lack of Public Interest: The Court first determined that the petitioner had failed to establish any genuine public interest. It noted that Mr. Cheda was not an elected Councillor and had not provided any evidence that any of the elected Councillors had objected to the reservation process. The judgment stated: > "The petitioner cannot be said to be raising any issue which can be said to be an issue relating to any public interest."

2. Validity of Executive Action Without Framed Rules: The central legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner could prescribe a method for reservation (draw of lots) in the absence of rules framed by the legislature. The Court held that the executive's power is not suspended pending the framing of rules. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Singh , the bench observed: > "Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of Rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same... the framing of rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute."

The Court concluded that the purpose of the Act could not be frustrated simply because procedural rules were yet to be framed.

3. Suppression of Material Facts: A critical factor in the dismissal was the petitioner's failure to disclose a crucial fact. The State Government Advocate revealed that the "draw of lots" procedure had been used previously in 2020 to determine the tenure of the Mayor. The Court took a stern view of this omission, stating: > "This fact is totally suppressed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him... the Court is inclined to dismiss this PIL on the ground of suppression of material facts with intent to conceal material fact from this Court."

The Court found that the repetition of a previously followed procedure could not be deemed illegal. It also noted that the challenged communication correctly cited Section 53(1) for the Mayor's reservation, contrary to the petitioner's claims.

Final Judgment

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the PIL, holding that the reservation of the Mayor's post for a woman was lawful and did not warrant judicial interference. For approaching the court without "clean hands" and concealing relevant information, the petitioner, Bharat Cheda, was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the Itanagar Municipal Corporation. The Court specified that the amount should be utilized for disaster management purposes.