(Delivered by Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.)—The writ petitioner herein claims to be the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat (Municipality), Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. According to him, duration of office of the Chairman and the elected body of the Nagar Panchayat will continue for a period of five years from the date of first meeting, after constitution or reconstitution of the Municipality. On 14th November, 2006 the oath of the petitioner and other elected members was administered and the first meeting of the elected body was held on 23rd January, 2007. Therefore, five years’ period will be counted from 23rd January, 2007 but not from the date when the oath was administered i.e. 14th November, 2011. According to the petitioner, the State respondents are interfering with the work of the Nagar Panchayat under the Chairmanship of petitioner and the respondent no. 2 has appointed the respondent no. 3 as Administrator of the Nagar Panchayat. In this background, the petitioner has made this writ petition with the following prayers:

“(A)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent no. 3 for not take charge of Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Pahasu, Bulandshahr from the petitioner.

(B) issue any other writ order or direction deemed proper in the circumstances of the case.

(C) award cost against the respondents.”

2. It appears to us that plinth of argument of the petitioner is mainly based on an interim order dated 15th November, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 11226 (M/B) of 2011 (Sandeep alias Sandeep Mehrotra v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and others) and three other matters. Copy of such interim order is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-2. While going through such interim order we find that though the scope of writ petitions was limited in respect of continuance of office of the elected body vis-a-vis appointment of administrator of the Municipalities and/or Municipal Corporations, but other aspects i.e. holding elections and validity of the Division Bench judgements of this Court were also considered. The first judgement of the Division Bench (Amitava Lala and V.K. Mathur, JJ.) is dated 19th October, 2011 delivered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53557 of 2011 (Ajeet Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and another) when the other one delivered by the Division Bench (R.K. Agrawal and Mrs. Saroj Bala, JJ.) is dated 22nd December, 2005 reported in 2006 (1) UPLBEC 874 (Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and others). The first judgement i.e. Ajeet Jaiswal (supra) relates to holding of elections within the time prescribed not only as per the constitutional mandate but also as per the Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 269 (Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors.), however, on the basis of Census-2011. In any event, when practical difficulties arose on the part of the Union of India and others to complete the census data as per the direction of this Court, all the parties in Ajeet Jaiswal (supra) inclusive of the Union of India came forward with several applications at a time and by an order dated 15th November, 2011 the Court was pleased to consider this aspect that the census can not be completed before 2013 and, therefore, the earlier order dated 19th October, 2011 was clarified by saying that there should not be any difficulty in holding the elections of the Municipal bodies as per Census-2011 as far as practicable. The State Election Commission will also, as far as possible, proceed on the basis of the latest electoral rolls. In case of any practical difficulty in respect of census data of 2011, the election process can be proceeded on the basis of census data of 2001 in that respect. Since the date of notification had already expired, the Court directed to notify the election by 16th November, 2011. It is well known that the constitut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document