Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioners are persons who have been nominated by the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi) under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter the `Act') to be represented in the concerned corporation. The petitioners, by virtue of being nominated in their respective corporations, are also members of the Ward Committees being electors within the territorial limits of the respective zones. The petitioners are being denied a right to vote in the meetings of their respective Ward Committees for electing a chairperson/deputy chairperson and a representative to the Standing Committee. They are also being denied an opportunity to offer themselves for election as a chairperson/deputy chairperson of their respective Ward Committees and/or as member of the Standing Committee or as the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee. Accordingly, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2913/2014 have filed the petition, inter alia, praying as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction thereby directing:-

A. The respondents to allow the petitioners and other similarly situated nominated members under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 3 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to participate and vote in the ensuing elections to the ward committees to be constituted under section 50 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957."

In substance, the prayers of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014 are also similar. In addition, these petitioners also claim to be entitled to vote and offer themselves for election as members and office bearers of the Standing Committee.

2. The controversy that has to be addressed is whether a person who has been nominated by the Administrator under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act would be disentitled to vote in the meetings of a Wards Committee. It is also necessary to consider whether nominated members - such as the petitioners - are entitled to offer their candidature for being elected as a representative of the Standing Committee, Chairperson/Deputy Chairperson of the Wards Committee or as a Chairman/Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee.

3. The petitioners concede that they are not entitled to vote in any meeting of the corporation to which they are nominated as the same is proscribed by the proviso to Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act. They, however, contend that the same would not preclude them from voting in the meetings of their respective Ward Committees or being elected to the Standing Committee. They contend that the proviso to Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act would not extend to meetings other than the meetings of the concerned corporation. It is submitted that the Wards Committee or the Standing Committee are separate authorities under the corporation and the proviso to Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act does not place any fetter on the petitioners from fully participating in the meetings of the Wards Committee and/or Standing Committee along with other members of their respective committees.

4. The respondents dispute the above contention and contend that a person nominated to a municipal corporation is inherently disentitled to vote in any meeting of the corporation or in meetings of any authority constituted under the corporation. It was contended that the Ward Committee or the Standing Committee are part of the corporation and thus, the nominated members to the corporation would be disentitled to vote in the meetings of the said Committees. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to Section 2(27) of the Act, which defines a member in relation to a corporation to mean a Councillor. He submits that reference to a member in relation to a Standing Committee or a Wards Committee would have to be read in a restrictive sense to mean only a Councillor and even though the persons nominated under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act may be members of the Ward