Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ashok Bhan and K.S.Kumaran JJ.
Pran Nath Bhatia
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 3050 of 1997,
Decided On : MARCH 21, 1997
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - DELIMITATION OF WARDS - VALIDITY - BAR TO INTERFERE BY COURTS IN ELECTORAL MATTERS - ARTICLE 243-ZG OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - DELIMITATION ORDER OF 1995 - PRINCIPLES FOR DELIMITATION OF WARDS - CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS - OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING - NECESSITY - RESERVATION OF WARDS FOR RESERVED CATEGORIES - BASIS - CENSUS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Municipal Councillors and members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, challenged the notification delimiting the wards of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, alleging that it was issued without considering their objections and was arbitrary and illegal. The Delimitation Board was constituted under the Delimitation Order of 1995, which laid down principles for delimitation of wards, including geographical compactness, reservation for Scheduled Castes and women, and allotment of seats for Backward Classes.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the validity of laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats could not be questioned in any Court in view of the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that the order issued under clause (8) of the Delimitation Order of 1995 was not beyond challenge by virtue of Article 243-ZG, but such a challenge could be made before the process of elections was put into motion and soon after the final order was passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the validity of laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats could be questioned in any Court in view of the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution? 2. Whether the order issued under clause (8) of the Delimitation Order of 1995 was beyond challenge by virtue of Article 243-ZG? 3. Whether an opportunity of personal hearing was required to be given before finalising the delimitation of wards? 4. Whether the demarcation and reservations of wards for reserved categories could be done without preparing a fresh Voters List?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the validity of laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats could not be questioned in any Court in view of the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. This was based on the reasoning that such orders had the force of law and were not subject to the scrutiny of any Court of law. 2. The Court clarified that the order issued under clause (8) of the Delimitation Order of 1995 was not beyond challenge by virtue of Article 243-ZG, but such a challenge could be made before the process of elections was put into motion and soon after the final order was passed. 3. The Court held that an opportunity of personal hearing was not required to be given before finalising the delimitation of wards, as the principles of natural justice did not require such a hearing in this case. The Court noted that the Scheme and Policy for delimitation of wards had been framed under the Statute, and that the residents of the Municipal area had been given the right to file objections and suggestions, which were considered before issuing the final notification. 4. The Court held that the demarcation and reservations of wards for reserved categories could be done without preparing a fresh Voters List, as the delimitation of wards and reservation of wards for reserved categories was to be done on the basis of the last preceding census of which the figures had already been published.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the delimitation of wards was done in accordance with the Delimitation Order of 1995 and that the objections raised by the petitioners were duly considered.
ASHOK BHAN, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 2992, 3050 and 3689 of 1997, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions.
2. Facts, as stated below, have been taken from Civil Writ Petition 3050 of 1997 :-
Petitioner No. 1 who was a Municipal Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and petitioners 2 and 3 who are members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Ludhiana, belonging to the Bhartiya Janta Party, have filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification, Annexure P-3, published in the Punjab Government (Extra ordinary) Gazette dated 12l1-1996, delimiting the wards of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, without considering their objections, being illegal and arbitrary and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their objections and also for any other writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
3 Elections to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) were held in 1991 for a term of five years. At that time, there were 50 wards. Petitioners 1 and 2 represented wards Nos. 37 and 24, respectively, in the Corporation, Ludhiana Municipal Area had been earlier divided into 50 wards; namely, Ludhiana (East) consisting of 12 Wards, Ludhiana (West) consisting of 13 Wards, Ludhiana (North) consisting of 13 wards and Ludhiana (South) consisting of 12 wards.
4. Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) was amended by the State Legislature by passing Act No. 8 of 1996, wherein the maximum number of wards from 50 was increased to 70 in Ludhiana, 60 in Amritsar and 55 in Jalandhar. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP 8697 of 1996 (Gulwant Singh V/s. State of Punjab etc. ) issued a direction to the State of Punjab to complete the process of elections of Ludhiana, Amritsar and Jalandhar Municipal Corporations within "three months on 19-9-1996. Subsequently, the time was extended up to 31-3-1997.
5. Punjab Government in super session of Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Notification No. G.S.R. 28/P.A.42/76/S. 34/95, dated 5-6- 1995, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Punjab Act No. 42 of 1976), and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, issued the Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Delimitation Order of 1995), to determine the delimitation of wards in the Municipal Corporations. Under this order, a Delimitation Board is required to be constituted under clause-3 of the Delimitation Order of 1995, which reads as under :-
"3. Constitution of Board -( 1 ) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this order the Government shall constitute a Board for each Municipal Corporation consisting of the following members; namely :(i) the Commissioner of the Division in which the Municipal Corporation is situated or any other officer nominated by him in this behalf;(ii ) the Director or any other officer nominated by him in this behalf;(iii ) the Mayor or in his absence the Senior Deputy Mayor and in the absence of both, the Deputy Mayor of the Corporation concerned, as the case may be; (iv) the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation concerned; (v) the Deputy Director. Local Government (Regional) and(vi) the Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation concerned.(2) The Board shall associate with itself for the purpose of assisting in the performance of its functions not mare than five Councillors of the Corporation having due regard to the representation of various political parties and groups in the composition of the Corporation :Provided that nothing contained hereinbefore shall apply to a Corporation which has been dissolved."
6. Clause 6, which lays down the principles for delimitation of wards of a City, reads as unde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
