Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 803
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
U.C. Maheshwari and B.D. Rathi, JJ.
Shrigopal Gupta v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No.4598 and 4723 of 2015 (PIL) (Gwalior);
Decided on 10.8.2015.
Sushil Chaturvedi for petitioner;
Arvind Dudawat, Additional Advocate General and Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State;
Mahesh Goyal for respondent No.3;
R.D. Jain with Sangam Jain for respondent No.4.
Headnote:(1) Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (M.P.) -- Rr.3(2) and 8 -- M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 -- Ss.10, 441 and 441-B -- Constitution of India -- Arts.243ZG, 243Q, 243U and 226 -- constitution of wards -- variation of percentage of population -- no objection filed under rule 8 of Rules of 1994 -- election program notified -- writ petition as PIL -- in writ jurisdiction -- no interference called for -- remedy is by way of election petition under sections 441 and 441-B of the Act of 1956. [Paras 15 & 16
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 243Q, 243U and 243ZG -- M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 -- Ss.10, 441 and 441-B -- M.P. Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 -- Rr.3(2) and 8 -- constitution of wards -- variation of percentage of population -- no objection filed under rule 8 of Rules of 1994 -- election program notified -- writ petition as PIL -- in writ jurisdiction -- no interference called for -- remedy is by way of election petition under sections 441 and 441-B of Act of 1956.
Held : In view of aforesaid provision of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the apex Court as well as High Courts, on examining the case at hand, it is apparent that the notification to hold the elections of the Municipal Corporation has already been promulgated on 20th July, 2015 and according to the same, process of election is being carried out by the Election Commission and polling is to take place on 12th August, 2015. Thus, in view of the principles laid down in the above mentioned cited cases, we are of the considered view that objections and the grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petitions could neither be considered nor adjudicated on merits by entertaining these petitions. As the provisions of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India being mandatory, this Court cannot interfere in the matter by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, subject to declaration of the result, on arising of an occasion, the aggrieved and affected party may approach appropriate forum of the Election Tribunal for redressal of such dispute in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sections 441 to 441-B(d)(iv) of the Act. (2000)8 SCC 216, (1996)6 SCC 303 and (1998)9 SCC 594 followed. AIR 2006 Guj. 53 and AIR 1996 Kar. 339 relied on. 2000(1) JLJ 208, 2005(2) JLJ 379 (FB) and 2014(III) MPWN 93 distinguished.
¼1½ uxjikfyd fuxe ¼okMks dk foLrkj½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-3¼2½ rFkk 8 && e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 10] 441 rFkk 441&[k && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-243;N] 243Fk] 243i rFkk 226 && okMk±s dk xBu && tula[;k ds izfr'kr dk varj && 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 8 ds v/khu vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ && fuokZpu dk;ZØe vf/klwfpr && yksdfgr eqdnek ds :i esa fjV ;kfpdk && fjV vfèkdkfjrk esa && gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha && 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 441 rFkk 441&[k ds v/khu fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk mipkj gSA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 16
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 243Fk] 243i rFkk 243;N && e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 10] 441 rFkk 441&[k && e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe ¼okMk±s dk foLrkj½ fu;e] 1994 && fu-3¼2½ rFkk 8 && okMk±s dk xBu && tula[;k ds izfr'kr dk varj && 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 8 ds v/khu vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ && fuokZpu dk;ZØe vf/klwfpr && yksdfgr eqdnek ds :i esa fjV ;kfpdk && fjV vf/kdkfjrk esa gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha && 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 441 rFkk 441&[k ds v/khu fuokZpu ;kfpdk }kjk mipkj gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lafo/kku ds mi;qZDr mica/kksa vkSj 'kh"kZ U;k;ky; ds lkFk&lkFk mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vf/kdfFkr fl)karksa ds n`f"Vdks.k ls] bl izdj.k dk ijh{k.k djus ij] ;g izdV gS fd uxjikfyd fuxe dk fuokZpu djkus dh vf/klwpuk igys ls gh 20 tqykbZ] 2015 dks tkjh dh tk pqdh gS vkSj mlds vuqlkj] fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk fuokZpu dh izfØ;k dk;kZfUor dh tk jgh gS vkSj 12 vxLr] 2015 dks ernku gksuk gSA bl izdkj] izLrqr mi;qZDr mDr izdj.kksa esa vf/kdfFkr fl)karksa ds n`f"Vdks.k ls] ge lqfuf'pr jk; esa gSa fd ;kph }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdkvksa esa dh xbZ vkifÙk;ksa vkSj vk/kkjksa ij u rks fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u gh bu ;kfpdkvksa dks xzg.k dj xq.kkxq.k ij vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tk ldrk gSA D;ksafd Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 243;N ds mica/k vkns'kkRed gksus ls] ;g U;k;ky; Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu dh vf/kdkfjrk dk voyac ysdj ekeys esa gLr{ksi ugha dj ldrkA fdlh Hkh n'kk esa ifj.kke ?kksf"kr gksus v/;/khu] volj mRiUu gksus ij] ifjosfnr vkSj izHkkfor i{kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 441 ls 441&[k¼x½¼4½ ds v/khu fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj ,sls fookn ds fuokj.k ds fy, leqfpr eap fuokZpu vfèkdj.k ds le{k igq¡p ldrk gSA ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 216] ¼1996½6 ,l lh lh 303 rFkk ¼1998½9 ,l lh lh 594 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2006 xqt- 53 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 dukZ- 339 voyafcrA 2000¼1½ ts ,y ts 208] 2005¼2½ ts ,y ts 379 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2014¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 93 izHksfnrA
Maheshwari, J. -- 1. This order shall govern the disposal of above mentioned both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner regarding dispute relating to the Morena Municipal Corporation, the process by which its wards were constituted and against the notification issued to hold the elections of such Municipal Corporation.
2. Petitioner, by stating himself to be a Journalist and correspondent of Punjab Kesari newspaper has filed public interest litigation petition (Writ Petition No.4598/2015) for issuance of appropriate writ against the authorities of the respondents for the following reliefs :
“That, by way of present petition, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to cure the illegality in declaration of Reserved wards and to undertake the process in strict compliance of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Anusuchit Jati, Anusuchit Janjati, Pichchda Varg Evam Mahilaon Ke Liye Wardon Ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1994 and the respondent No.3 be directed not to declare the Election program till the process in accordance thereof is completed.”
3. Such petitioner has also filed another Public Interest Litigation petition (Writ Petition 4723/2015) for issuance of appropriate writ against the authorities of the respondents for the following reliefs :
“That, by way of present petition, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to cure the illegality in declaration of Extent of Municipal wards and the severe illegality in preparation of the same and to undertake the process in strict compliance of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules 1994 and then undertake the proposed elections and the enquiry be directed against the erring officials.”
4. Petitioner’s counsel after taking us through the pleadings of both the writ petitions and annexed documents argued that before issuance of notification to hold elections of the Municipal Corporation, Morena, constitution of the wards were not carried out in accordance with rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards ) Rules, 1994 [for brevity, the “Rules”], the mandatory provisions of Article 243S of the Constitution of India had also not complied with by the authorities while formation of the wards of Municipal Corporation. In such backdrop, by referring Schedule 3, a part of Annexure R-4 filed with Writ Petition 4723/2015, he said that the wards of the Municipal Corporation, Morena, i.e., 47 in number have not been constituted by declaring the equal population of each ward with either side variation of 15% provided under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Rules. In continuation, he said that against the proposal of constitution of wards in the aforesaid manner, on filing the objections of the persons of the town, the same were not considered in accordance with law and such proposal was finalized. In response of some specific query of the Court, petitioner’s counsel has categorically conceded that against the aforesaid proposal of constitution of the wards, the present petitioner has not filed any objection under rule 8 of the Rules before the authority within the time prescribed. In continuation, he said that in view of settled proposition, there is no absolute bar to entertain and decide these petitions in spite the provisions of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. In support of such contention, he has also placed his reliance on some reported cases along with on an unreported order of the Division Bench of this Court. In continuation, he said that as per the provisions of the Rules and the Act, the Collector was not competent authority to consider and decide the objections and finalize the constitution of the wards and, in such premises, the notification of finalization of the wards being not issued by the authority in consonance under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity, the “Act”), as well as the aforesaid Rules, is not sustainable and in such
