The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory procedures must be followed, and if a statute prescribes a particular manner of action, it must be adhered to.

Sujoy Paul, J.:-

“Law has reached its finest moment when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion”. Since the Legislature has enacted the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as the “Rules”), petitioner, a citizen of Vidisha thought that said finest moment has reached and authorities are now bound to act in consonance and within the frame work of these provisions. The petitioner is aggrieved by notification dated 19.9.2014 (Annexure P/1) and prayed that it be set aside. A mandamus is prayed for to direct the respondents to undertake the exercise of determination of extent of wards afresh in accordance with the said rules. Lastly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to follow the procedure as prescribed in Section 5-A of the Act.

2. The relief prayed for shows that grievance of the petitioner is of two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the notification dated 19.9.2014 is not in consonance with section 29 of the Act and rules 3,6,7 and 8 of the Rules. Relief 7(iii) is prayed for by contending that as per Section 5-A of the Act, the ultimate decision is to be taken by the Governor whereas in the present case it is taken by the Collector.

3. Shri Pawan Dwivedi submits that determination of number and extent of wards needs to be done as per section 29 of the Act. Rules 3 to 8 prescribe methodology for the purpose of determination of number and extent of wards. It is submitted that the procedure prescribed in the said rules is not followed. No notice regarding the proposal if prepared under rule 6 is published by the Deputy Collector in the local newspaper in the prescribed form. Notices were not pasted in notice board of the office of Collector, office of Municipality and on other conspicuous places in the ward for the information in general public. No objections were invited and therefore, general public was deprived from their right of preferring objection.

4. In support of relief 7 (iii) reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment passed in WP No. 12777/2014 (Abhinesh Mahore vs. State of MP) and the order passed in RP No. 667/2014 (between the same parties).

5. Per Contra, Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that under section 5-A initial notification was issued on 4.6.2014, published in M.P. Gazette on 20.6.2014. Thereafter, second notification was issued on 21.8.2014, Annexure A/3. The petitioner has not challenged these notifications and, therefore, relief 7(iii) is not tenable. So far validity of notification, Annexure P-1, is concerned, Shri Raghuvanshi relied on the notification dated 30.8.2014 published in M.P. Gazette on 5.9.2014. He submits that by this notification the objections were invited. Thereafter, subsequent notification dated 10.9.2014 is passed, whereby the Collector has determined the extent of wards in Municipal Council, Vidisha. He submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of specific bar in Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. He relied on (1996) 6 SCC 303 (Anugrah Narain Singh and another vs. State of UP). He submits that if this petition is finally heard with regard to validity of impugned notification, Annexure P-1, he has no objection. However, he submits that if this Court intends to entertain this petition with regard to other notifications issued under Section 5-A, he be given liberty to file a detailed reply and submit the relevant record.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In view of aforesaid stand of Government, I deem it proper to first deal with the aspect whether relief 7(iii) can be entertained.

8. It is seen that in Abhinesh Mahore (supra) the petitioners therein challenged both the notifications. Since notifications were called in question, the court examined the decision making process. Indore Bench of this Court on 11.11.2014 passed a detailed judgment