IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL and SNEH PRASHAR, JJ.
Dr. Sat Pal Goyal - Petitioner
Vs.
UT of Chandigarh and others - Respondents
CWP Nos. 21840 of 2016
Decided On : 15-12-2016
It appears to be a matter of coincidence that in the elections of 2006 and now scheduled on 18.12.2016, the reservation of wards for Scheduled castes and ward No.9 for women has been the same but it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the reservation of wards in 2006 was done on the basis of Census of 2001 whereas fresh Census had taken place in 2011 and the reservation which has now been made is in terms of Section 5(4) of the 1994 Act, i.e., the number of seats to be reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes bears the same ratio to the total number of elected councillors as the population of Scheduled Castes bears to the total population of the city. No infirmity could be noticed in the approach adopted by the respondents in reserving the wards. (Para 20)
(B) Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extention to Chandigarh) Act, 1994, S.20--Municipal Elections--Reservation of Wards--Maintainability of writ--Remedy to challenge the election to any municipality is by way of an election petition only--Bar under Article 243ZG(D) is a absolute bar--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 243ZG. (Para 24)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226--Municipal Election--Scope of Writ Petition--Though High Court does not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and also issue necessary directions, but at the same time, restraint should be exercised in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to pass any interim order or otherwise which has the effect of postponing an election which is reasonably imminent and would result in indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies. (Para 33)
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 21840 and 22072 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in both the petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 21840 of 2016.
2. In Civil Writ Petition No. 21840 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Dr. Sat Pal Goyal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the notification dated 14.10.2016, Annexure P.8 issued by the State Election Commission, UT Chandigarh whereby Ward No. 23 has been reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate for the coming election of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, 2016. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to hold the election for the post of Municipal Councillor of Ward No.23 for general category of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. In Civil Writ Petition No. 22072 of 2016, prayer has been made for quashing the notification dated 14.10.2016, Annexure P.6, issued by respondent No.4 whereby Ward No.9 of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh has been reserved for Women (general) in violation of Section 6(2) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 (in short, "the 1994 Act"). Prayer has also been made for a direction to respondent No.4 to re-determine the reservation for Ward No.9 as per notification dated 19.09.2016, Annexure P.5.
3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in Civil Writ Petition No.21840 of 2016 may be noticed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ram Darbar, Phase-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh. His name was duly entered in the Electoral Roll of Ward No.23 of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh at serial No. 218. He is an active social worker, President of Ram Darbar Agarwal Sabha, Senior Vice President of “Lok Jan Shakti Party”, and Member of Food Corporation of India, Union Territory, Chandigarh. He is also doing various social works for the upliftment and welfare of the public. The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh came into being in the Union Territory of Chandigarh under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (in short, "the 1976 Act") as extended to the Union Territory, Chandigarh by the 1994 Act. There was an amendment in the Constitution i.e. 74th Amendment in 1992 whereby more powers and responsibilities were given to the Local Self Government Institution. By the said amendment, it was provided that some wards/constituencies should be reserved for the weaker sections of the society i.e. for Scheduled Caste, women and backward class to the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election and to be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality/Corporation as per Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. The territorial area of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh was divided into 20 wards. The method of reservation of wards for Scheduled Castes Community, SC Women and Women was adopted in the year 1996 i.e. first election after the 74th amendment and the following wards were reserved for these categories in the year 1996:-
| Total Wards 20 | Ward No. reserve for SC/SC Women 5,15,18-W.N.18 reserve for SCW | Reserve for Women 1, 8, 9, 11, 14 & 17 |
In the second election of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh in the year 2001, the following wards were reserved :-
| Total Wards 20 | Ward No. reserve for SC/SC Women 14, 19 & 7 W.No. 7 reserve for SCW | Reserve for Women 2, 5, 6, 13, 15 & 16
|
Vide notification dated 19.09.2016, the number of wards of entire Municipal area of the said Corporation was increased from 20 to 26. The Department of Local Government, Chandigarh Administration further reserved five seats of Councillors for the members of Scheduled Castes (including two reserved for women Scheduled Castes candidates
Anugrah Narain Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
B.Premanand and others Vs. Mohan Koikal and others
Dr. K. Krishna Murthy vs. Union of India
Gurdeep Singh Dhillon vs. Satpal and Others
Jaspal Singh Arora v. State of M.P. & Ors.
Lakshmi Charan Sen and others vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others
Mohan Singh vs. International Airport Authority of India
Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors.
Prithvi Raj vs. State Election Commission, Punjab and others
State of Punjab and others vs. Manjit Singh Sethi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.