Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(P&H) 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Shiv Kumar Sood & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.20406 of 2020, CWP No.20547 of 2020, CWP No.21033 of 2020, CWP No.21143 of 2020, CWP No.21496 of 2020, CWP No.21663 of 2020, CWP No.18317 of 2020, CWP No.137 of 2021 and CWP No.139 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Gupta, Mr. Anil Rana, Advocates, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Chadda, Advocate, Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Ms. Anu Chatrath, Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, Ms. Shweta Nahata, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions, emphasizing the prevention of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides.

Headnote:
Delimitation - Violation of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order of 1995, Delimitation Act, 1972, Census Act, 1948, Census Rules, 1990, Chapter IX(A) of the Constitution of India - [PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DELIMITATION OF WARDS, ELECTION PROCESS, JUDICIAL REVIEW]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed writ petitions to quash notifications concerning the delimitation of wards, alleging violation of various acts and rules. They argued that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice, non-application of mind by the official respondents, and infringement of constitutional provisions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the objections raised by the petitioners had been duly considered by the Delimitation Board. It held that the election process had commenced, and interference by the court at that stage would be improper. The court also noted that there was no arbitrariness, irrationality, illegality, or irrationality in the actions of the official respondents.
Issues: Violation of principle of natural justice, non-application of mind by official respondents, infringement of constitutional provisions, interference with election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the election process should not be stalled, retarded, or protracted. It also highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions, intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the submissions of the petitioners, with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - This order will dispose of CWP Nos.20406, 20547, 21033, 21143, 21496, 21663, 18317 of 2020, 137 and 139 of 2021 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the connected writ petitions. For the sake of brevity and convenience, a glance of facts are being taken from CWP No. 20406 of 2020.

CWP Nos. 20406, 20547, 21033, 21143, 21496, 21663,18317 of 2020

2. The petitioners have approached this Court through these writ petitions for quashing the notification dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure P-8) concerning the delimitation of wards alongwith map issued by the official respondents which is said to be in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'Act of 1976'), the Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order (for short "Order of 1995"), the Delimitation Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972'), Census Act, 1948 (for short 'Act of 1948'), Census Rules, 1990 (for short 'Rules of 1990') and Chapter IX (A) of the Constitution of India and that too without deciding the objections dated 16.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) submitted by the petitioners with regard to delimitation of the wards, reservation, population, contiguity etc. of the Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur.

CWP Nos. 137 and 139 of 2021

Through these two petitions the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby the respondents are said to have changed illegally the serial no. of ward from 12 to 13 and ward no. 4 to 5, respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, inter alia, made the following submissions :-

i) It has been argued that there is violation of principle of natural justice on the part of the official respondents as they have not considered and decided the objections/representation(s) of the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners have not been granted opportunity of personal hearing by the official respondents.

ii) Notification dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.2 is illegal and improper since it depicts non-application of mind of the official respondents. It is submitted that delimitation of wards in Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur was not warranted as there is neither any change in the boundaries of the city nor any change in the population. As such fresh delimitation of wards was not required. The fact regarding non-increase in the population and non-change in the geographical area/boundary is evident from the information provided vide letter dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) under Right to Information Act, 2005.

iii) Notification dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure P-8) has been issued in violation of the notification dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure P-3). A perusal of notification (Annexure P-3) shows that out of total 50 wards 12 seats were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, 36 seats were reserved for General Category and two seats were reserved for Backward Class category candidates. Whereas vide notification (Annexure P-8), the seats belonging to Scheduled Caste category have been increased from 12 to 13 and thereby the seats belonging to General Category have been decreased, which resulted into inadequacy of candidate belonging to General Category in Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur.

iv) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Notification (Annexure P-8) has been issued in violation of the provisions of Chapter IX(A) of the Constitution of India, since Article 243P(g) provides the definition of "population" as ascertained at the last preceding census and in compliance to the said Chapter, Rules of 1990 have been framed which mandates the State Government to issue notifications to freeze the administrative boundaries of local areas on such date as is intimated by the Census Commissioner. The action of the official respondents is against the provisions of Chapter IX(A) of the Constitution of India and their own Notification dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure P-3), which ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document