Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 June, 2012
Bench: A.N. Jindal, Rajiv Narain Raina
Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012
Date of decision:- 06.06.2012
Paramjit Singh and others
....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Senior Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 20.04.2012 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) under Sections 7-A and 5 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), whereby elections for Municipal Corporations Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Patiala are scheduled to be held in the 2nd week of June, 2012 and the wards reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste Women, women (General Category) and Backward Classes have not been properly rotated.
The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid notifications on the ground that while issuing the same, the State Government has not Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012 2 rotated the Wards as required under Section 6 of the Act and Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the reservation of the Wards and their rotation is mandatory and since the Wards have not been rotated, therefore, the notification (Annexure P-2) is legally not maintainable. It has been further contended that some of the Wards, which were reserved for the elections held in the year 2007, have again been reserved for the instant elections to be held in the year 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that in the present case, notification under Section 7-A has been issued prior to issuance of notification under Section 5 (3) of the Act, which is against the norms; before the initiation of the election process, the delimitation of Wards is to be done as per the Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order 1995 and thereafter, notification under Section 5 (3) of the Act is required to be issued for declaring that election is to be conducted for how many seats and how many Wards are to be reserved. Thereafter, finally, notification under Section 7-A of the Act is required to be issued for declaring the date of the election.
Heard. Section 6 of the Act has been incorporated keeping in view the Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. In case titled as Inderjit Vs. State of Punjab, LPA No.1294 of 2010 (decided on 15.02.2012), a Division Bench of this Court has held that Article 243-T of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Act are to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in a Municipality. Such reservation was found to be mandatory, but as to which seats are to be reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012 3 directory. It has been further held as under:-
"As mentioned above, the intention of Article 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Act is to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backwards Classes in a Municipality. As to which seats are reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and is directory. Therefore, while rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude. The State has to be given play in knee joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the process of notification for reserving wards. The division Bench of this Court in Baldev Raj Vs. State of Punjab, ILR (2009) 1 P&H 355, has observed that only right of a citizen in the matter of election is to exercise franchise according to his free will and choice. This right of the appellant/petitioners remains intact irrespective of the fact that the ward in question has been reserved or de-reserved. Therefore, we do not find that any prejudice has been suffered by the appellant/petitioners by reserving Ward No.11 for backward class candidates."
In the present case, even some of the Wards have been reserved again, but we do not find any ground to intervene in the election process once the same has been started, in view of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 6933 of 2012 titled as Lakhbir Singh Sehmee Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.04.2012, wherein the Court while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Anugrah Narain Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. And others, has observed as under:-
"In the present case, in terms of Section 7-A of the Act, the State Government has issued notification on 20.04.2012. The election process has started with the publication of the aforesaid notification. The State Election Commission has decided that electoral rolls for Punjab Vidhan Sabha prepared on 01.01.2012 shall be the electoral rolls for the election to the Municipal Corporation. The elections to the State Legislature have been held only in the month of February, 2012. Therefore, the said Rolls are the most recent rolls and relevant Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012 4 for the elections of the Municipal Corporation.
Similarly, fresh preparation of the electoral rolls is not necessary, as it has been decided by the Election Commission that the electoral rolls, as prepared for the election of Punjab Vidhan Sabha shall be used for the purpose of election of Municipal corporations with reference to 01.01.2012, as the qualifying date.
A Full Bench of this Court in Prithvi Raj Vs. State Election Commission, Punjab and others, AIR 2007 P&H 178 has held that the jurisdiction of this Court stands barred, when a notification under Section 13-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 corresponding to Section 7-A of the Act is issued. It is held to the following effect:
"21. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Constitution, the Municipal Act and the Election Commission Act leads to a singular conclusion, namely, that once an election has been notified under Section 13-A (2) of the Municipal Act, an "election', as defined in Section 3 (4-c) thereof, can only be called into question by way of an election petition, filed in accordance with the provisions and the mode and manner, as set out in the Election Commission Act."
In Prithvi Raj Vs. State Election Commission, Punjab and others, AIR 2007 P&H 178, a Full Bench of this Court has held that the jurisdiction of this Court stands barred when a notification under Section 13-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is issued. It has further been held that Section 13-A of the Municipal Act, 1911 is pari materia to Section 7-A of the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition after issuance of notification under Section 7-A of the Act is not maintainable.
In Anugrah Narain Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"35. .....Barely one week before the voting was scheduled to commence, the Court decided to intervene in the matter regardless of the repeated warnings given by this Court in a number of earlier decisions. The Court decided to intervene in the matter and stop the election process while it was nearing completion. In Lakshmi Charan case (1985) 4 SCC 689, it was held that the Court should not intervene even when the elections were imminent. Here, the election Civil Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2012 5 was well under way."
In the present case also, the elections process is scheduled to be completed till the second week of June 2012. Any intervention at this stage shall disrupt the entire election process. It is well settled that the election disputes can be raised even after completion of the elections. The elections must be held on the due dates. The petitioners can very well challenge the rotation of Wards after the elections are completed.
In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.N. JINDAL)
JUDGE
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
June 06, 2012 JUDGE
ajp