JUDGMENT :

Ravi Ranjan, J.

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. Heard parties.

3. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaration of Rule 3.16 of the Jharkhand Municipality Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 2020), as ultra vires to Section 18(1) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 2011), as amended by the Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 2017), which is the Parent Act, and for a further direction for issuance of an appropriated writ/writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter No.2026 dated 14.08.2020, issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder it has been decided that the petitioner is ineligible under Rule 3.16 of the Rules, 2020, for the post of Mayer, Giridih Municipal Corporation as also to stay the decision as contained in impugned letter No.2026 dated 14.08.2020, issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jharkhand or no coercive action be directed to be taken against the petitioner.

4. However, Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has confined his prayer only with respect to the prayer No.1 pertaining to declaration of Rule 3.16 of the Rules, 2020), as ultra vires to Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011, as amended by the Act, 2017 being the Parent Act as because according to him since the writ petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 3.16 of the Rules, 2020, therefore, an opportunity be given to the writ petitioner to assail the other prayers as contained under Prayer Nos. II and III before the appropriate forum, if the opinion so arises.

5. In view thereof, the instant writ petition is confined only to the prayer No.I pertaining to pertaining to declaration of Rule 3.16 of the Rules, 2020), as ultra vires to Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011, as amended by the Act, 2017 and so far as relief Nos. II and III are concerned, the writ petitioner would be at liberty, if he so wishes, to approach the appropriate forum.

6. The factual matrix of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition and argued by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is as under :-

The writ petitioner claims himself to be a local resident of the district of Giridih within the State of Jharkhand. He claims to have contested the election for the post of Mayer in the year 2018 and to that effect a certificate was issued in favour of the writ petitioner on 20.04.2018 as would be evident from Annexure – 1 appended to the writ petition.

It is the contention of the writ petitioner that under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011, as amended by virtue of the Amendment Act, 2017, the grounds of disqualification of a person holding the office as Councillor has been provided containing therein altogether 15 grounds for disqualification and as such, the Councillor is supposed to be disqualified only on a condition if he/she has been found to be disqualified as per the condition referred under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011. It has further been contended that the Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2017 notified vide Gazette dated 23.01.2018 has further been amended as Jharkhand Municipality Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020, notified vide Notification No.1910 dated 28.07.2020 in exercise of power conferred under Section 590 of the Act, 2011 whereby and whereunder a provision has been inserted under Rule 3.16 laying down a condition for disqualification which is not provided under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011, the parent Act, and therefore, the provision of Rule 3.16 of the Amended Rules, 2020 is ultra vires since the said condition of disqualification is absent under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2011.

Acc