JUDGMENT :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In both these petitions, Ordinance No. VII of 2022 dated 4-8-2022, which was later on made into an Act, i.e. Maharashtra Act No. XLIII of 2022, has been challenged on the ground that the same is ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

3. The main ground of challenge to the constitutionality of the impugned Ordinance and the impugned Act is that they are manifestly arbitrary and have been promulgated and enacted only to negate the decision of this Court by which Ordinance No. XIII of 2021, amending Section 5 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’ for short) so as to increase the number of directly elected Corporators in Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘MMC’ for short) from 227 to 236 was upheld by the judgment of this Court delivered on 17-1-2022 in Writ Petition No. 3824 of 2021, which judgment attained finality when the Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court questioning the said judgment was dismissed on 18-2-2022.

4. For effectively deciding the controversy involved in both these petitions, it is necessary for us to make a brief reference to the relevant events that preceded promulgation of the impugned Ordinance, which was later on made into the impugned Act, which we state in the following paragraphs.

5. The State Government by the Maharashtra Ordinance No. XIII of 2021 dated 27-11-2021, which was later on made into the Maharashtra Act No. II of 2022, amended Section 5(1)(a) of MMC Act so as to provide for increase in the number of directly elected Councillors in MMC from 227 to 236 on the ground that the census figures from 2001 to 2011 showed that there was an increase in the population of MMC by 3.87%. A Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 3824 of 2021, challenging the Maharashtra Ordinance No. XIII of 2021 and the Maharashtra Act No. II of 2022, was dismissed by this Court by its judgment dated 17-1-2022. In the said judgment, this Court held that the impugned Ordinance and the impugned Act were not arbitrary, as they were passed on the census figures of 2011. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal questioning its correctness, by its order dated 18-2-2022.

6. In the meantime, the Government of Maharashtra issued the Maharashtra Ordinance No. III of 2021 to provide for 27% of reservation to backward classes of citizens in the elections of local bodies in the State of Maharashtra. This Ordinance came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 11744 of 2021 before this Court and as no interim relief was granted, the Special Leave to Appeal came to be filed before the Supreme Court. A Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 1316 of 2021, was also filed challenging the Maharashtra Ordinance No. III of 2021. By the order passed on 6-12-2021, the Supreme Court held that without a report of the dedicated Commission, which had been constituted under the Notification dated 29-6-2021, there could not be any reservation for the Other Backward Class category. It directed the State Election Commission (‘SEC’ for short) that it should desist from proceeding with the election programme, which it had already notified, in respect of the seats reserved for the Other Backward Class category and to that extent, the election programme was stayed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, directed the SEC to proceed further with the rest of the election programme pertaining to other seats (other than seats for Other Backward Class category), including general seats. An application was filed by the State of Maharashtra before the Supreme Court praying that the entire election process be stayed and that the Commission appointed by it for reservation of seats for Other Backward Class category be directed to complete its work within three months and after completion thereof, the election programme be continued as per the op