Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7056
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kalyan Rai Surana, Pranjal Das, JJ
BHARAT CHEDA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
P.I.L. NO. 18 (AP) OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Public Interest Litigation - Election Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The petitioner lacked standing as no material supporting public grievance was provided - Moreover, failure to include previous elections and relevant evidence dismissed the petition’s credibility. (Paras 9, 24)
(C) Moreover, the petitioner did not present a case sufficient for interference regarding the election process of Mayor under the prescribed Act, resulting in a dismissal. (Paras 10, 23).
Findings of Court:
It was determined that the reservation for women in the role of Mayor did not contravene any existing laws and prior practices validated current provisions.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner raised an issue of public interest? 2. Whether the meeting to elect the Mayor was conducted legally? 3. Do the manner and reservation of the post require court interference?
Ratio Decidendi: It was ruled that procedural adherence to elections and reservations under the Municipal Corporation Act holds precedence over the petitioner's claims and was aligned with legal frameworks established in prior practices.
Result: PIL dismissed with costs.
For the petitioner:Mr. T. Pertin, Advocate.
For State respondent Nos.1 & 3:Mr. S. Tapin, Senior Govt. Advocate.
For respondent No.2: Ms. N. Anju.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reservation of mayor's post raised by the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding reservation procedure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's rationale on procedural correctness. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. final ruling and implications on petitioner's conduct. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV (K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 3; and Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2.
2) By filing this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Bharat Cheda, has assailed the letter dated 22.12.2025 [28.12.2025], issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region, by which post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was reserved for women; and to direct the State Election Commission to conduct the election for the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation without reserving the post for women.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act , 2019, prescribes that post of Mayor can only be reserved for Scheduled Tribes women by rotation or by drawing of lots only in the manner prescribed. It has been submitted that this would necessarily mean that the prescription regarding “manner” must be prescribed by the Legislature and thus, it was not permissible for the Deputy Commissioner to have the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation reserved for women and filled up by draw of lots at his own volition.
4) By referring to the cases of Sri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, Aligarh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13258- 13259/2024, decided on 05.03.2025, it has been submitted that in the said recent case, the principles laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmed has been followed to the effect when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. It has been submitted that the same ratio has been followed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala , (1999) 3 SCC 422, and State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 368 .
5) It was further submitted that the notice to convene meeting was issued under Section 15(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act , 2019 and not under Section 53(1) thereof, therefore, the meeting for election of the Mayor is also bad in law and illegal.
6) The learned Senior Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayers made in this PIL and has prayed for dismissal of the PIL. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following cases, viz., Sonvir @ Somvir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24, and Surinder Singh v. Central Government & Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 667 .
7) In this case, a short returnable notice was issued by order dated 01.11.2023. Accordingly, the learned Senior Government Advocate has produced a bunch of documents, copy of which has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8) Having examined the statements made in this PIL and having heard both sides, the following points of determination have arisen for consideration in this case:-
i. Whether the petitioner has raised any issue of public interest in this PIL?
ii. Whether the Meeting to elect a Mayor for the Itanagar Municipal Corporation was duly convened?
iii. Whether the manner in which reservation of the post of Mayor for Itanagar Municipal Corporation for women warrants examination and interference in this PIL?
Point of determination no. 1:
9) In this case, the petitioner is not an elected Councillor. The petitioner has not brought on record any material from which it can be gathered that any grievance had been raised by any of the elected Councillors complaining that the manner in which reservation of women for the post of Mayor of I
