Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.18639/2019
(VISHRAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior dtd. 20/09/2019
Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.K.Soni, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-
i) The final publication as contained in Annexure P/1 may kindly be set aside;
ii) The respondents may also kindly be directed to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners / applicants/ objectors as per provisions of the Act 1993 and Circular Nos. 2 and 3;
iii) The respondents may also kindly be directed to pass speaking and reasoned orders;
Alternatively The respondents may kindly be directed to re-consider and decide representations of the petitioners within the stipulated time period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court after giving the opportunity of hearing and through reasoned order;
iv) To pass such other further order (s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Cost may also be awarded.
This Court in the case of Ajeet Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others by order dated 04/02/2019 passed in W.P. No. 2031/2019 has held as under :-
In the subject matter, it is pleaded by the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.18639/2019 (VISHRAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) petitioner that this petition arises out of the acts of respondents, whereby in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of Section 29 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 in relation to notification of wards while in the case in hand, there is no equitable distribution of population, which is a condition precedent under the provisions of Section 29 of the Municipalities Act. The said notification is claimed to have been marked as Annexure P/1, but Annexure P/1 is the letter dated 29/11/2018 issued to the Collector of Districts Shahdol, Umariya, Anuppur, Shivpuri, Raisen, Sidhi and Betul, however, the Gazette notification is Annexure P/3 dated 14/5/2018, by which notification in regard to the wards have been published in the M.P. Gazette. It is further pleaded that because of certain illegalities, the said determination of Extent of Wards is bad. It is further pleaded that the boundaries have not been determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Municipalities Act and if the voter-list is checked, then it would be clear that there is more than 15% variation of population, whereas the permissible limit is 15% and, hence, the notification is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 669 took a view that upon publication in Gazette of India, the order of delimitation shall have the force of law and shall not be liable to be called in question and the matter can no longer be re-agitated in any Court. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj Narain reported in AIR 1975 SC 2299 it has been held that judicial review cannot be considered to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution while considering the bar under Article 329-A. Part 9-A of the Constitution of India deals with Municipalities. Article 243S 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.18639/2019 (VISHRAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) provides for constitution and composition of Wards Committees, whereas Article 243U provides for duration of Municipalities. Election of the Municipalities is provided under Article 243ZA. Article 243ZG provides for bar to interfere by Courts in electoral matters. In the present case, determination of Extent of Wards has been challenged on the ground of unequal distribution of population. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, the validity of any law relating to delimitation of the constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243ZA cannot be called in question in any court. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is not maintainable in the light of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India.
It is clearly conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that the final notification has been issued. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in the light of the order passed in W.P. No. 2031/2019.
It is, accordingly, dismissed as non maintainable.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
PRINCEE BARAIYA
2019.09.23
18:55:36 -07'00'