SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(MP) 808

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Vinayak Parihar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Satyam Agrawal, Adv., Amit Seth, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

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
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top