2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 592

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
Santanu Kumar Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C). No. 7296 of 2025

State authorities possess the competence to sub-classify municipal corporations into distinct groups based on population metrics for implementing reservation policies, provided such rules align with constitutional mandates, are supported by a dedicated commission, and do not exceed statutory reservation ceilings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 243-Q, 243-T, 243-ZA - Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 - Section 27 (as amended by Act 2022) - Jharkhand Nagarpalika Nirwachan Evam Chunav Yachika Niyamawali, 2012 (as amended) - Reservation of offices in local bodies - Petitioner challenged classification of municipal corporations into sub-categories ('Varg Ka' and 'Varg Kha') and the exclusion of a specific city from reservation, arguing for strict population-based descending order - State asserted classification was based on triple-test recommendations and population thresholds - Court held that reservation under Article 243-T(4) empowers State legislatures to provide for manner of reservation - Rule-making power for categorization into groups based on population size (e.g., million-plus cities) is within legislative and administrative competence - Subordinate legislation challenged on grounds of inconsistency with parent Act or constitutional scheme requires caution; presumption of validity exists. (Paras 66, 88-89, 101-103, 111)

(B) Administrative Law - Subordinate legislation - Judicial review - Standard of challenge - Challenging classification of municipal bodies for reservation purposes - Burden lies on challenger to prove invalidity - If enactment and rules read as a whole serve the purpose of the statute, they cannot be held ultra vires - Classification based on population magnitude (million-plus) is a valid policy decision when supported by a dedicated commission's recommendations. (Paras 89-91, 103, 122)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ to reserve the mayoral post of a municipal corporation for a specific reserved category based on population-descendant criteria, challenging the administrative classification of municipal corporations into two sub-groups. The petitioner contended this sub-categorization lacked legislative sanction under constitutional provisions and the state municipal act. During proceedings, further notifications were issued by the state authorities formalizing the categorization.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the state legislature is empowered under the Constitution to prescribe the manner of reservation for chairpersons/mayors. The sub-classification of urban local bodies based on populational demographics and the recommendations of a dedicated commission was found to be a valid exercise of administrative power, distinct from the broader statutory categories of municipalities.

Issues: Whether the creation of sub-categories of municipal corporations and the resultant denial of reservation status to a specific corporation is ultra vires the Constitution and the relevant state municipal act, and whether legislative or assembly discussions can override the enacted statutory amendments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the state, through delegated legislation, is competent to categorize municipal entities when performing the 'triple test' for reservation, provided it does not violate constitutional ceilings or statutory mandates. It clarified that legislative intent is determined by the enacted text, not by debates or discussions on the floor of the house.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. admissibility of intervention applications in writ proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. challenge to exclusion of dhanbad municipal corporation from reservation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. arguments questioning sub-classification of municipal corporations as arbitrary. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
4. respondents' justification based on constitutional duty and dedicated commission. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
5. constitutional mandate for municipal governance and reservation mechanisms. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84)
6. upholding state classification and deletion of rotation policy. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128)
7. dismissal of writ petition due to lack of merit. (Para 129 , 130)

CAV on 14/01/2026 Pronounced on 27/ 01/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

I.A. No. 474 of 2026

1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed by one Irshad Ahmad, to intervene in this writ petition for adjudication of the matter of reservation in Mayor/Chairman Post in Giridih Municipal Corporation.

2. It is stated that intervener-petitioner belongs to [Other Backward Class] OBC category living in the township of Giridih where population of OBC Category is larger than another category i.e., 65.24% as per census of 2011. It is further stated that earlier, prior to 2016, Giridih Township was in „Municipality Area‟ and now it became „Municipal Corporation‟ where the post of Mayor/Chairman was reserved for the SC Category and again reserved for the same which is contrary to the law that the post of Mayor/Chairman should be rotational.

3. It is further stated that as per the notification dated 16.10.2025 the Mayor post of Giridih Municipal Corporation is reserved for SC Category which is contrary to the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (herein after referred to as „Rule 2012‟) and for this issue one writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 324 of 2018 (Md. Anwar Ali vs. State of Jharkhand and others) was filed wherein it is specifically mentioned that the post of Mayor will be rotational.

4. It is further stated that the intervener-petitioner is bona fide resident of Giridih and claiming himself as an OBC Category whose population is larger than all other category, and the seat of Mayor was reserved for SC Category in the election of 2016 and again reserved for SC Category, which is against the principles of natural justice.

5. On the aforesaid backdrop, prayer has been made to allow the instant interlocutory application filed for intervention in writ petition making the intervener a necessary party so that interest of the intervener be saved.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise objection so far prayer for intervention in the instant writ petition is concerned so that the issue be set at rest. However, he has opposed to the contentions made by learned counsel for the intervener-petitioner on the merit of the matter.

7. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the instant intervention application being I.A. No.474 of 2026 is hereby allowed only to the extent that intervener will be treated as necessary party to the present lis.

Prayer in W.P. (C) No.7296 of 2025

8. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“I.Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent-Authorities, particularly the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jhark

Click Here to Read the rest of this document