Hon’ble R. K. Agrawal, J.—The growing tendency of the persons who are at the helm of affairs in the State and who have taken oath of office as per the forms set out in the Third Schedule, to do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, to blindly follow the directions given by another authority, often lead to a situation, like the present one where a constitutional crisis may occur, which could have been avoided. In the present case, the State Government abandoned the exercise of delimitation of wards as mandated in Section 32 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”) and Section 11-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipalities Act”), by blindly following the instructions contained in letter dated 1.10.2004 sent by the Delimitation Commission as communicated by the Executive Council vide letter dated 6.10.2004, which had nothing to do with the delimitation of the wards of municipalities and was only concerned with the constituencies for election of the House of People and the Legislative Assemblies.

2. We consider it proper to refer to the observations made in the opening part of the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shinde, AIR 1978 SC 955, which is to the following effect:-

“If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to Judge Jerome Frank in “Law and the Modern Mind”, the reasons are mainly two : firstly, the lack of precise formulation of even statutory law so as to leave lacunae and loopholes in it giving scope to much avoidable disputation: and, secondly, the unpredictability of the judicial rendering of the law after every conceivable as well as inconceivable aspect of it has been explored and subjected to forensic debate, Even the staunchest exponents of legal realism, who are apt to treat the quest for certainty in the administration of justice in accordance with law, in an uncertain world of imperfect human beings, to be practically always futile and doomed to failure, will not deny the desirability and the beneficial effects of such certainty in law as may be possible. Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain, by applying well established canons of statutory construction becomes befogged by the vagaries, if one may use a possibly strong word without disrespect, of judicial exposition divorced from these canons.”

3. With a view to strengthen the institution of self-Government, the Parliament by the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which was made effective from 1.6.1993, inserted Part IX-A in the Constitution of India. It provided for the constitution, composition, duration of municipalities, constitution and composition of wards, committees etc., reservation of seats, disqualification of membership, the power, authority and responsibility of municipalities, the power to impose tax by, and the funds of, the municipalities, audit of accounts, elections and many more things. While inserting Article 243-U in the Constitution of India, the paramount consideration of the Parliament was that a municipality should function in every Nagar Panchayat, a smaller urban area or a larger urban area for a period of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force. In the event the municipality has been dissolved, sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of Article 243-U provided election to a municipality before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution with a rider that if the remainder of the period of the dissolved municipality is less than six months, then election for constituting the municipality for the remainder period is not necessary. However, in the event the term of the municipality has expired, then election to constitute the municipality ha