Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HEMANT GUPTA, CJ, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.
Vinayak Parihar - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20702 of 2016
Decided On : 05-02-2018
Act Referred
MADHYA PRADESH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT : S.9(1)(c), S.441(b)
MADHYA PRADESH MUNICIPALITIES ACT : S.19(1)(c), S.20
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT : S.6
Headnote
Nominations - Municipal Corporation Alderman - Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, Section 9(1)(c) and Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, Section 19(1)(c) - 9, 19 - The court discussed the statutory provisions of Section 9(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Section 19(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which provide for the nomination of persons having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration by the State Government. The court examined the meaning of 'special knowledge or experience' and its subjective satisfaction by the State Government, emphasizing that the decision-making process is subject to judicial review only if it is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscience of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the nominations of Aldermen of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and Municipality Gadarwara, Kareli, and Narsinghpur, contending that the nominated candidates lacked special knowledge or experience in municipal administration as required by the statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decision of whether a candidate has special knowledge or experience in municipal administration falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government and is not open to judicial review unless it is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscience of the court. The court also noted that the writ petition was pending for more than a year, and therefore proceeded to decide the matter on both preliminary objection and merits.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the nominations of Aldermen based on the lack of special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, the maintainability of public interest litigation, and the availability of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision-making process of the State Government is subject to judicial review only if it is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscience of the court. The court also considered the pendency of the writ petition for more than a year as a factor in deciding the matter.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the election petition is maintainable, and any dispute regarding the nomination of a councillor has to be raised in terms of the provisions of the statute. However, due to the prolonged pendency of the writ petition, the court proceeded to decide the matter on both preliminary objection and merits.
Satyam Agrawal, Adv., Amit Seth, Adv.
HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the nominations of respondent Nos.6 to 11 as Alderman of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in exercise of power under section 9(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'); and, that of respondent Nos. 12 to 23 as Alderman of Municipality Gadarwara, Kareli and Narsinghpur in exercise of powers conferred under section 19(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short the 'MC Act').
2. Such nominations are challenged on the ground that a person can be nominated as an Alderman who has to have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. Since none of the nominated candidates have any special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, therefore, their nomination is not legal in terms of the statutory provisions. It is contended that some of the nominated members are the members of the party in power whereas the others are Housewives, Grocery Shop owners, School Owner, Welder, Agriculturist etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Sachchidanand Sheketkar Vs. State of M P and others, (2014) 3 MPLJ 242, wherein the appointment of Alderman in terms of section 9(1)(c) of the Act was set aside.
3. On the other hand, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that public interest litigation in respect of nominated councilors is not maintainable in view of Section 441-B of the Act and Sections 20 of the MC Act. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Prem Narayan Yadav Vs. State of MP and others, (2014) 3 MPLJ 47.
4. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that whether a candidate has special knowledge or experience in municipal administration is subjective satisfaction of the State Government, which satisfaction is not open to judicial review unless it is said to be malafide. It is also contended that the expression 'special knowledge or experience' is not defined in the Act or in the MC Act, therefore, the meaning as is understood by public at large and/or the dictionary meaning has to be applied. The municipality is the lowest tier in the local government; therefore, requirement of nomination of Alderman is to give representation to various sections of the society so that they can be voice of the residents of the municipal area in the municipality. The councillor is not a post which requires any expertise, technical or otherwise; therefore, the nomination of a councillor is primarily subjective satisfaction of the State Government, provided the candidate satisfies the criteria fixed under the statute.
5. The relevant provisions of 9(1)(c) of the Act and that of 19(1)(c) of the MC Act, read as follows:-
"9. Composition of Municipal Corporation (1) A Municipal Corporation shall consist of-
xxx xxx xxx
(c) not more than six persons having special knowledge or experience in the Municipal administration, nominated by the State Government.
Provided that only a person residing within the Municipal area and being otherwise not ineligible for election as a Councillor, may be nominated. "
"19. Composition of Municipal Council or Nagar Parishad - (1) A Municipal Council or a Nagar Parishad, shall consist of -
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Not more than four persons in the case of Municipal Councils and not more than two persons in the case of Nagar Parishads having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration nominated by the State Government.
Provided that only a person residing within the Municipal area and being otherwise not ineligible for election as a Councillor may be nominated. "
6. The nomination of municipal councillors having 'special knowledge or experience' in municipal administration is a clause introduced in the Act or in the MC Act on the basis of Article 243-R of the Constitution/in Part IX-A thereof in the year 1993. The statute does not provide for what is meant by 'special knowledge o
