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

2022 Supreme(MP) 4

SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Jayesh Gurnani – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission – Respondent


Advocates:
Vibhor Khandelwal for petitioners; Kamal Airen for respondent No. 1; Valmik Sakargayen, Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 2 and 3/State.

ORDER

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the entire process of reservation of Municipal Wards adopted by the respondents No.2 and 3 contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994 (herein after referred to as “the Reservation Rules, 1994”) and also for quashing the impugned notification dated 6.11.2020 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No.2 (The State of Madhya Pradesh) in pursuance to the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994, whereby the list of Reserved Wards has been published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, finalizing the reservation of Municipal Wards of Indore Municipal Area, without following the due process of “Rotation of Wards”, as required under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994.

2. According to the petitioners, the process adopted by the respondents for reservation of the Indore Municipal Wards is illegal, unconstitutional and irrational and thus, deserves to be quashed.

3. Brief facts giv

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