SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(AP) 267

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.C.PRATAP, S.SUBHASHAN REDDY
S.Prasada Raju - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-92

The power of the government to extend the terms of elected representatives is enabling in nature and the government has to consider whether it is feasible and desirable to extend such terms.

Headnote:

LOCAL BODIES - EXTENSION OF TERM - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - SCOPE - ORDINANCES 4 AND 5 OF 1992 - SUSPENSION - VALIDITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, elected representatives of local authorities in Andhra Pradesh, filed writ petitions seeking interim relief to continue in office pending the election of new representatives. The government had proposed to appoint Special Officers to man the local authorities, citing the expiry of the petitioners' terms. The petitioners argued that the relevant statutes provided for extension of their terms and that the government had a duty to consider such extension.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions for extension of terms were enabling in nature and that the government had to consider whether it was feasible and desirable to extend such terms. The court found that the government had made such an exercise in the case of civic bodies and had not extended the terms of the elected representatives due to their misconduct. The court also found that the government had not made such an exercise in the case of Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads and Chairmen of Zilla Praja Parishads and directed the government to take a decision on the extension of their terms within three weeks.

Issues: 1. Whether the elected representatives whose term has expired are entitled as of right for extension of their term? 2. Whether the government is perforce obliged to extend the said terms due to its inability or disability to hold elections immediately? 3. Whether the impugned Ordinances 4 and 5 of 1992 are valid and constitutional?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions for extension of terms of elected representatives are enabling in nature and the government has to consider whether it is feasible and desirable to extend such terms. 2. The government is not perforce obliged to extend the said terms due to its inability or disability to hold elections immediately. 3. The impugned Ordinances 4 and 5 of 1992 are prima facie invalid and unconstitutional as they were issued in the midst of arguments before the court and were aimed at scuttling the judicial process.

Final Decision: The court refused to grant interim relief to the petitioners and directed the government to conduct elections to the local bodies within a specified time frame. The court also suspended Ordinance 5 of 1992 and directed the government to consider the desirability of continuing the present Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads and Chairmen of Zilla Praja Parishads until elections.

( 1 ) THESE miscellaneous applications are filed seeking interim relief of continuing the petitioners who are the elected representatives of the local authorities, be it, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, Mandal Praja Parishads or Zilla Praja Parishads, pending election of new representatives.

( 2 ) THE writ petitions came to be filed on the verge of the expiry of the term of the period for which the elections were held and in the wake of the Government s proposal to man the above said local authorities in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh through governmental officers by appointing them as Special Officers or Persons-in-charge, by whatever name called. In the main writ petitions, the prayer is to hold elections and pending the same, to continue the petitioners in offices for which they were elected in a democratic manner . Such a provision is contained in the relevant statutes under which the petitioners were elected. The said provisions were enabling provisions empowering the government to extend the term of the present incumbents whose term expires and that is a power to be exercised by application of mind. It may be that, extension can be refused on adverse reports and also on some other valid grounds. It is pertinent to mention that ours is a representative democracy and not a monarchical democracy. Ours is the largest democracy in the world and the very essence of democracy is to have the elected representatives at several levels, be it in discharge of sovereign functions, governance of local self-governments or even the co-operative societies. In the governance of these functions, the basic concept is to have elected representatives and in fact, this is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. The democracy has as its first article of faith, free election of representatives at intervals with a general freedom of expression. In a democratic society of ours, the people and not the Government possess absolute sovereignty. Rule of law cannot be fully realised unless legislative or local bodies are established in accordance with the will of the people. In order to maintain adequately the rule of law, the Government should adhere to the democratic representation.

( 3 ) THE statutes relevant and concerning these matters do provide elections at intervals of every five years. That is a good measure in conformity to democratic norms. But, it has to be seen as to whether the same is followed in true spirit. Instances galore, where elections to local bodies were indefinitely postponed and were manned by the sub-ordinates of the executive naming them as either Special Officers of Persons-in-charge, as the case may be. It has happened in the case of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, when there were no elections to the said local body for the period from 1969 to 1986. Now, again it is under the spell of Special Officer who is no other than the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation itself and discharges the function of not only the Commissioner, but also the Standing Committee and its Head. There were no elections conducted to Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads for a period of more than five years during 1975-1981. The elections to Co-operative societies were not conducted for quite a long time and this Court had to intervene and issue directions which were ultimately complied with only during the months of January and February, 1992. Having regard to this, during the course of arguments, we had sought for a definite period within which time-frame, the elections to the local bodies in question in this batch of writ petitions can be held. The learned Advocate-General, representing the State, sought for time to obtain instructions in this regard from the State Government and had on 22-4-1992, apart from oral assurance, has produced letters addressed by the concerned Secretaries to him, one concerning Municipalities including Municipal Corporations and another, concerning the Mandal Praja Parishads and Zi











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top