Chattisgarh High Court
Kripa Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024
1 / 48
2024:CGHC:41754
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 20.09.2024
Order delivered on 22.10.2024
WPC No. 3693 of 2024
1. Kulbeer Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh Chhabra
Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Sonarpara
Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon C.G. Mo. No.
- 6260804408
---- Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban, Administration And Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District-
Raipur, C.G.
2. Directorate Urban, Administration And Development
Department, D-Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District - Raipur, C.G.
3. Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
4. Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its
Commissioner Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon District-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
5. Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon District-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
---- Respondents
2 / 48
WPC No. 3795 of 2024
1. Santosh Namdeo S/o Late Shri Khorbahra Namdeo Aged About 58 Years R/o Sheetla Ward, Ward No. 19, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
2. Samat Ali Khan S/o Shri Gulab Shah Aged About 50 Years R/o Sheetla Ward No. 19, Beechpara, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Collector Kabirdham, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
4. Municipal Council Kawardha Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Kawardha, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents WPC No. 3725 of 2024
1. Rajeshwar Sonkar S/o Balram Sonkar, Aged About 41 Years President, Nagar Palika Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
2. Smt. Shanti Tandan W/o Shri Santram Tandan Aged About 53 Years Councilor, Ward No. 1, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
3. Mahesh Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Shri Yuroop Singh Aged About 46 Years Councilor, Ward No. 2, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
4. Thanesh Patel, S/o Late Shri Uday Ram Patel Aged About 38 Years Councilor, Ward No. 3, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
5. Manharan Yadav S/o Shri Kejauram Yadav Aged About 41 3 / 48 Years Councilor, Ward No. 4, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
6. Smt. Lata Khairwar, W/o Shri Dhanehwar Khairwar, Aged About 34 Years Councilor, Ward No. 7, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
7. Pramod Singh Rajput S/o Shri Kundan Singh Rajput Aged About 34 Years Councilor, Ward No. 8, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
8. Neetu Rawte W/o Shri Bodhi Rawte Aged About 50 Years Councilor, Ward No. 11, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
9. Smt Lalita W/o Shri Kishore Sonkar Aged About 29 Years Councilor, Ward No. 13, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
10. Yujendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Khamhan Singh Sahu Aged About 44 Years Councilor, Ward No. 16, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
11.Rakesh Kurre, S/o Shri Chandraprakash Kurre, Aged About 38 Years Councilor, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
12. Smt Janki Dhruw, W/o Shri Tejpratap Dhruw, Aged About 41 Years Councilor, Ward No. 20, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
13. Pramod Chandrakar, S/o Shri Tikendra Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years Councilor, Ward No. 21, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur ( C.G.).
2. Collector Durg, Distruct- Durg ( C.G.).
4 / 48
3. Chief Municipal Officer, Kumhari Municipal Council, District- Durg ( C.G.).
4. Nayab Tahsildar, Tehsil Bhilai -3, District- Durg (C.G.).
---- Respondents WPC No. 3754 of 2024
1. Suman Das Goswami S/o. Shri Tulsidas Goswami Aged About 43 Years R/o. Ward No. 16, Sonipara Singhori, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Bemetara Main Road, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, Main Road, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
4. Municipal Council Bemetara Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Bemetara, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPC No. 3768 of 2024
1. Tek Chand Karda S/o Late Shri Hotumal Karda Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Ward No. 4, Shankar Nagar, Padariya Road, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Collector, Bilaspur Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) 5 / 48
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Takhatpur, Main Road, Takhatpur, Dsitrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Municipal Council, Takhatpur Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Takhatpur, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents WPC No. 4007 of 2024
1. Dharmendra Lodha, S/o. Late Shri Lalchandii Lodha, Aged About 57 Years R/o. House No. 299, Station Road, Sunderganj Ward, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, D-Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
4. Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
5. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPC No. 4063 of 2024
1. Shailesh Pandey, S/o. M.P. Pandey, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Aasma Enclave, Near Jain International School, Sakri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Vinod Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamjhool Sahu, Aged About 51 Years R/o. Ward No. 42, Quarter No. E-6, Sone Ganga Colony, Chantidih, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 / 48
3. Arvind Shukla, S/o. Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Aged About 38 Years R/o. 25/666, Ward No. 25, Information Of Mahamaya Lodge, Near Kumharpara, Karbala Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Motilal Tharawani, S/o. Amritlal Tharmani, Aged About 49 Years R/o. 247, Ward No. 38, Hemu Nagar, Near Sindhi Dharamshala, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Mohammad Javed Jabbar, S/o. Abdul Jabbar, House No. 492, Masjid Gali, Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District And Tehsil Raipur (C.G.)
2. Directorate, Urban Administration And Development Department, D- Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
6. The Secretary Of State Election Commission Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPC No. 3871 of 2024
1. Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri J.P. Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o. Kurumkela, Ward No. 12, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
2. Vaijnath Prasad S/o Late Lakhan Sao Aged About 68 Years R/o. Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
3. Mukesh Kumar S/o. Sarju Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o. 7 / 48 Kurumkela, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)
3. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPC No. 4285 of 2024
1. Sunil Sharma S/o Late Banwarilal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Nagar Panchayat Kotba, Ward No. 06, Tahsil - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kotba, Tahsil - Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents WPC No. 4032 of 2024
1. Aijaz Dhebar S/o Zikar Dhebar Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Ocm Chowk In Front Of Hindu High School Byron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 8 / 48
2. Akash Tiwari S/o Anup Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 35, Mig 35 Indrawati Colony, Indrawati Garden Ke Pass Rajatab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Samir Akhtar S/o Nayeem Akhtar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 62, H. No. 40/1025, Eidgaah Ke Saamne Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Suresh Channawar S/o Damodar Rao Channawar Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Tulsi Bhawan, Indra Gandhi Ward No. 20 Nahar Para, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
5. Maniram Sahu S/o Kejoo Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Gali No. 2, Shiv Mandir Chowk Gokul Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
6. Mannu Yadav S/o Shrichand Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 66, Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
7. Akashdeep Sharma S/o Ashwani Sharma Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 56, Vriddashram Nagar Nigam Hospital Campus Shyaam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
8. Jitendra Agrawal S/o Kandhilal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 43, Purani Basti, Baniyapara, Ashok Pahalwan Gali, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
9. Nisha Yadav W/o Devendra Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 58, Parshad Niwas, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
10. Prakash Jagat S/o Ratiram Jagat Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 23, Near Masjid Road, Koteshwar Nagar, Kota, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
11.Manju Sahu W/o Varendra Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Dr. A.P.J. Kalam, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
12. Shree Kumar Menon S/o S.K. Menon Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Lig-148, Ward No. 10, Tilak Nagar Janta 9 / 48 Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
13. Sheetal Kuldeep S/o Sundar Das Kuldeep Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Tahsilpara, Bhanupratappur, Uttar Baster Kanker, (C.G.)
14. Beerendra Dewangan S/o Ranchhor Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 67, Amapara Road, Dhobipara Bramhanpara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
15. Sahdev S/o Surudhan Vibhar Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 50, Guruteg Bahadur Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
16. Neelam Jagat W/o Neelkanth Jagat Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 47, 21/1979, Nanak Kirana Gali, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
17. Ritesh Tiwari S/o Bhagwan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 37, Nagarnigam Colony Amapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
18. Uttam Sahu S/o Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 67, Shriram Nagar, Changorabhata, Raipur, District
- Raipur (C.G.)
19. Dhanesh Banjare S/o Kamta Prasad Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 51, House No. 114, Satnam Chowk, Labhandi, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
20. Draupati Bai Patel W/o Hemant Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Bajar Chowk Laxmi Nagar, Mowa, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
21. Ghanshyam Chhatri S/o Butu Chhatri Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Lig 47/559, Ring Road No. 2 Near Gol Chowk, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
22. Sandhya Thakur W/o Nanu Singh Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 52, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
23. Uma Nirmalkar W/o Chandrahas Nirmalkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.54, Boriyakhurd, Raipur, District Raipur 10 / 48 (C.G.)
24. Anwar Hussan S/o Islam Hussan Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 36, Maudhapara, Subhash Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
25. Purushottam Behera S/o Chandra Behera Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Behera Colony, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
26. Kamran Ansari S/o Md. Shamshuddin Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 34, Raja Talab Near Gopal Store, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
27. Amitesh Bhardwaj S/o Prem Singh Bhardwaj Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 11, H-7 Rajiv Nagar Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
28. Anjani Vibhar W/o Radheshayam Vibhar Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Near Sai Mandir Post Wrs Colony Khamatarai 2, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
29. Dileshwari Sahu W/o Annu Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Thakkar Bapa Ward 09 Parvati Nagar Gudhiyarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
30. Sundar Lal Jogi S/o Shyam Lal Jogi Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 26, Thakkar Bapa Ward 09 Mini Mata Chowk, Satnami Para, Gudhiyarai Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Raipur, District - Durg (C.G.)
3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Municipal Corporation, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents 11 / 48 WPC No. 4037 of 2024
1. Kripa Ram Sahu S/o Shri Radhelal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Councilor Ward No. 40, R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Nagar, Balco, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2. Tarun Rathore S/o Shri Tileshwar Prasad Rathore Aged About 34 Years Councilor Ward No. 38, R/o Quarter No. 630-632, Sector 4, Type I I A, Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3. Surti Kuldeep D/o Shri Janak Das Kuldeep Aged About 30 Years Councilor Ward No. 57, R/o Quarter No. 665, Bhairotaal, Market Line, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, (CG).
2. Collector Korba, District Korba (CG)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba (CG)
---- Respondents WPC No. 4069 of 2024
1. Boystobo @ Banti Nihal S/o Bhola Nihal Aged About 43 Years R/o Block No. 36 B.S.U.P. Colony Telibandha Raipur, Tah And District- Raipur, C.G.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban, Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department, D-Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Collector Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
4. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
5. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondents WPC No. 4039 of 2024
1. Smt. Titli Gaurav Bindal W/o Gaurav Bindal Aged About 39 Years R/o Thankhamariya Ward No. 4 Main Road House No. 36 District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2. Kanhaiya Nirmalkar S/o Late Aajurao Nirmalkar Aged About 40 Years R/o 12 / 48 Ward No.8 Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
3. Reena Loknath Sinha W/o Loknath Sinha Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No.6,Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban, Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Directorate Urban, Administration And Development Department, D-Block 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4. Municipal Council Thankhamariya Through Its Chief Municipal Officer Thakhamariya District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
6. Prakash Yadav Tahsiidar Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
---- Respondents WPC No. 3843 of 2024
1. Sageer Khan S/o Late Shri Shahjad Khan, Aged About 45 Years Councilor, Ward No. 06, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Mojampara, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Mohammad Yaseen S/o Shri Haji Ibrahim Bhai, Aged About 33 Years Councilor, Ward No. 10, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Main Road Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
3. Anil Usendi S/o Late Shri Ramratan Usendi Aged About 38 Years Councilor, Ward No. 14, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Panchwati, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
4. Pankaj Nag S/o Shri Radheshyam Nag, Aged About 36 Years Councilor, Ward No. 01, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Surdongar,, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
4. Chief Minicipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondents 13 / 48 For Petitioners : Mr.S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manharanlal Sahu, Advocate; Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Ratnesh K Agrawal, Mr. Harish Khutiya, Mr. CJK Rao, Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Mr. Manas Vajpai, Ms. Sunita Jain, Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocates for respective petitioners.
For Respondents : Mr. Prafulla N Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General & Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer; Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas with Mr. V. Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for respective respondents.
Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C A V Order
1. As the challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the proceeding initiated for delimitation of municipal corporation/ nagar panchayats/municipalities as also final notification issued of delimitation of some of the municipal/ panchayat/ municipalities areas, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Petitioner in WPC No.3693/2024 is the Councilor of Ward No.25-Sonarpara of Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon. Pursuant to publication of preliminary Notification dated 15.7.2024 in regard to the proposal of delimitation of extent of wards under Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon on the ground that it is in violation of Section 10 (3) and 11 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), Rule 6 (2) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal 14 / 48 Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1994') but the same was not considered and final notification has been issued.
3. Challenge to delimitation process in WPC Nos.3754/2024, 3768/2024, 3795/2024, 4037/2024 is on the ground that the power of delimitation conferred upon the authorities cannot be exercised randomly and frequently at the discretion of the competent authority and it can only be exercise when there arises a situation warranting of exercise of such power in order to ensure homogeneity within the wards in a municipal area. Delimitation of wards in Municipal Council according to population was already done in the year 2014 and 2019, therefore, there is no occasion for respondent authorities to make proposal for delimitation of wards. Further, there is neither any addition of territory within the municipal limits nor is there any new population census, which is indicative of fact that impugned process of delimitation of wards is deliberately done to take political advantage by breaking the counting blocks within the wards. Hence, the impugned preliminary proposal published by respondent authorities is nothing but colourable exercise of power.
4. Petitioners in WPC No.4063/2024 are aggrieved by delimitation process for the reason that they have submitted objections to preliminary notification issued under Rule 7 of 15 / 48 the Rules of 1994 within specified time raising specific objection that delimitation process suffers from distribution of population, reservation, geographically dis-balance and in violation of relevant provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') and the Rules of 1994. However, without deciding the objections raised by petitioner, respondent authorities have issued final notification on 29.7.2024.
5. Petitioners in WPC No.3725/2024, 3871/2024, 4007/2024, 4032/2024, 4039/2024, 4069/2024, 4285/2024 have challenged the delimitation process on the ground that impugned notification is issued without considering that delimitation process already carried in the year 2019 and thereafter there is no change in scenario either by way of boundaries or population of Municipal Corporation Kumhari. The entire exercise is being carried without there being any proposal from the Council or need of changing the extent of wards assessed by the authorities in larger public interest or any finding with regard to inconsistency of constitution of wards made earlier in the year 2019. Extent of determination of wards as determined vide notification issued in the year 2019 became final having not been challenged by anyone nor the respondent authorities can challenge their own earlier exercise to be in violation of law when there was no dispute 16 / 48 for the last five years. Entire delimitation process is in violation of the provisions contained in Article 243 (ZG) of the Constitution of India, the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994.
6. Petitioners in WPC Nos.3843/2024 have assailed the impugned notification on the ground that there is no change in existing area of municipal council and therefore, delimitation process is contrary to provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1961 and express provision under the Rules of 1994. By changing the boundaries of wards, as intended in Notification, counting blocks of particular category of voters within the wards have been affected. the competent authority to initiate process of delimitation and determination of wards under the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994 is the Collector, however, the entire delimitation process is done by the authority below the rank of Collector. Without considering the objections submitted by petitioner, the impugned notification is issued.
7. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State in all writ petitions raising almost common pleadings. It is pleaded that Section 10 of the Act of 1956 as also Section 29 of the Act of 1961 empowers the State Government to determine the number and extent of wards. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 355 of the Act of 1961, the Rules of 1994 have been framed. Delimitation proceeding become essential because there was gross anomaly in distribution of population and 17 / 48 compactness of wards in the delimitation process carried in the year 2019. Delimitation process has been started in the interest of able governance as also equitable distribution of population (as per census of 2011) and ensuring the compactness of various wards (which were not earlier compact), to ensure fair process for determination of extent of wards, the entire action has been conducted in accordance with law, with full participation of general public and stakeholders. Bare reading of the provisions contained under the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1961 with respect to issue in question clearly establish that it is the discretion of the State Government to exercise its power to initiate proceeding for determination of wards. It has been done following the provisions under the law and constitutional mandate, objections were called and the same were decided. Some objections/suggestions were accepted and some were rejected. After issuance of first notice dated 10.6.2024, other notices were issued making certain amendments in earlier notice issued for initiation of delimitation process by the State Government, making it clear that basis for delimitation and equitable distribution of population and compactness of wards is solely on the basis of Census of 2011.
8. Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners in WPC No.3693/2024 etc., argued that 18 / 48 delimitation of municipality can only be done if municipal limits are extended or there is abnormal variation in population, change in number of wards upon constitution of new municipality or voting figures of some of the wards of Municipality. In case at hand, respondent authorities have initiated delimitation process on the ground that there has been increase in population after the Census of 2011. The word 'population' is defined in Section 5 (43-a) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') as also in Article 243 P (g) of the Constitution of India, which means the population as ascertained at last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. Rule 6 (2) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994, envisages that reformation of ward of municipalities can be done on the basis of total population of municipal area as per figure published of the last census. Admittedly, no census is taken place after the year 2011, hence, there is no data available with respondents with respect to any increase in population after 2011. On the basis of last census i.e. of the year 2011, the then State Government had already undertaken the exercise of delimitation in the year 2014 and 2019 and therefore, present delimitation process, without a fresh census becomes an arbitrary act. Merely because delimitation proceedings 19 / 48 initiated under Section 29 of the Act of 1961 in the year 2019 was upheld by the High Court, which has also attained finality, the respondents cannot be permitted to claim that they are also entitled to undertake the exercise of delimitation afresh on the basis of Census of 2011. He further submits that mere increase or decrease in the population of any ward by way of inclusion or exclusion, for whatever reason, cannot be made ground for invoking the provisions under Section 29 of the Act of 1961. Revision of electoral roll is a continuous process and it could not be the basis for exercising the powers for determining number and extent of wards.
9. He next contended that respondents have proposed to initiate process of delimitation inter alia on the basis of available data of voters of previous election, as mentioned in Para-5 of the Memo dated 14.6.2024 (Annexure R4/3), however, before issuing such a direction, the State Government has not inserted corresponding provision in the Statute and thus it contravenes the provisions contained in the Act of 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. As per Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to determine the wards in such a way that population of each of the wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the municipal area and the quotient so arrived must be the average population of a ward in which a variation upto 15% 20 / 48 may be allowed. However, while making division of the wards, the respondents herein have violated the provisions of Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994 and made the wards of lesser population from that of the quotient arrived at.
10. He further argued that as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994, it is for the District Collector concerned to prepare the proposal for delimitation of municipalities, however, the proposal of present delimitation process has been prepared by the Tahsildar and thus Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 has not been followed in letter and spirit, which vitiates the entire delimitation process. Further, objections to the proposed delimitation process, as per draft notification issued, were submitted but without deciding the same, final notification has been issued by respondent and thereby the provision under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994 has not been followed. Under such circumstances, the entire delimitation process initiated by the respondent authorities based on the Census, 2011 is arbitrary, per se illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in the Act of 1956, Rules of 1994 as also the Constitution of India.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in cases of Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Punjab; AIR Online 2023 P & H 1357; Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat and 21 / 48 others; (2020) 6 SCC 548; Civil Appeal No.7930/2024 (Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & ors), decided on 23.7.2024.
11. Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner in WPC No.3693/2024, submits that he has challenged the delimitation of Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon. Section 10 of the CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 deals with delimitation of number and extent of wards and conduct of election, which is almost similar to that of Section 29 of the Act of 1961. Separate Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 is legislated which is also similar to that of the Rules of 1994. Adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in respective petitions, submitted that for the purpose of undertaking the exercise of delimitation, Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 provides that municipal area shall be divided into wards in number equal to the number of wards as determined by the State Government under Section 29 (1) of the Act of 1961 and that the population of every municipal area on dividing by the number of wards as determined for that municipal area, the quotient so arrived shall be the average population of a ward in which a variation upto 15% may be allowed. He submits that in the year 2019, population of Ward No.10, 15, 20 and 25 of Municipal Corporation 22 / 48 Rajnandgaon was 3575, 3044, 3100 and 3249 respectively however, in the year 2024 while making division of wards, respondents have increased the population of these Wards from 3575, 3044, 3100 & 3249 and fixed at 4261, 4516, 4098, 4164, which is more than the permissible limit of variation provided in Rule 3 (2). Thus, there is deviation of more than 15% in population while delimitation of wards, which is contrary to Rule 3 (2) of Rules, which specifies that the quotient so arrived shall be average population of a ward in which variation upto 15% may be allowed.
12. He further contended that while delimitation of wards, it is the obligation of respondents to constitute the wards in such a way that every territorial ward, be geographically compact. However, the composition of wards during current delimitation has been made in such a manner which destroys compactness of many wards of Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon. The boundaries of many wards have been changed due to creation of new wards, deletion of existing wards, shifting of certain areas of a ward to another ward, main roads have been crossed, counting blocks have been affected etc., which disturbed the geographical contiguity of a ward. Thus, compactness of area forming each ward had not been maintained/ taken into consideration during delimitation process, whereas, Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 provides 23 / 48 that while division of municipal area, the area of each ward, so far as practicable, shall be compact.
13. He contended that delimitation of only those wards is done of which Councillors belongs to party in opposition, which shows that the entire delimitation exercise has been undertaken under the guidance and supervision of the ruling party in order to tilt scales in favour of ruling party in upcoming municipal elections and the impugned notification is issued only to further the electoral prospects of the party in power by not adhering to the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the rules thereunder framed in this regard.
14. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel representing petitioner in WPC No.4063/2024 began his arguments, canvassing that the objection with respect to maintainability of writ petition in view of express bar imposed by Article 243ZA
(a) of the Constitution of India is not tenable for the reason that the notification for holding of elections of municipalities has yet not been issued and this writ petition is filed immediately after publication of final notification of delimitation. Interference by the Courts in election matters is not permissible only when the electoral process commences with the issuance of a notification under the Act of 1961 and such a situation has not arisen in present case, hence writ petition is maintainable. He next contended that notice inviting 24 / 48 objection in regard to proposed limits of the wards is signed by the Collector concerned but the proposal to determine the extent of wards is prepared by the Zone Commissioner/Sub- Engineer, Municipal Corporation and not by the Collector, as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 and thereby the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 has not been followed, which vitiates the entire exercise of delimitation. Vide representation dated 31.7.2024 petitioner submitted representation before respondent No.1 to intimate as to what decision is taken on the objection submitted by him with respect to proposed delimitation of extents of wards but respondents have not responded to the same, which show that final notification is published without considering and deciding objection of petitioner and as such, the final notification is published without adhering to the provision of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. For the rest, he adopted the arguments advanced by other counsel in connected writ petitions. On the question of maintainability of writ petition challenging delimitation process, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1879.
15. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel representing petitioners in WPC No.3754/2024, 3795/2024 and 3768/2024 has 25 / 48 advanced similar arguments as have been advanced by learned counsel for respective petitioners in other connected matters. In addition, he argued that the provision under the statute is incorporated as a safeguard and not to act arbitrarily and redetermine the extent of wards time and again at whims, fancies and choice. Presence of power does not mean that it can be exercised for ostensible reason, therefore, process of delimitation of wards cannot be carried out in a routine manner and it is necessary only when there is addition or exclusion in territorial boundaries of any municipal council or where there is a new population census published which demonstrate unequal distribution of population. The entire process of delimitation in question is initiated by respondents on the ground that while making delimitation in the year 2019, there were certain discrepancies which are required to be cured although there is no whisper in this regard in document Annexure P-2 which is heart and soul for initiation of process delimitation.
16. He further submits that without there being any change in the existing area of municipal councils involved in these writ petitions, the respondents have decided to redetermine their boundaries, which is contrary to express provision under the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994. Vide Annexure P-10 the State Government issued instruction to all the Collectors to 26 / 48 ensure that delimitation process is carried in such a manner that counting blocks should not be altered or bifurcated. However, the proposed notification bifurcates various counting blocks located in different wards of municipal council Bemetara; petitioner submitted objection in this regard giving details of counting blocks going to be affected from impugned delimitation, but no action whatsoever has been taken. The result of any election under a majority system depends in fact not only the way people vote but on the way their votes are distributed among the constituencies/wards and therefore, it is impermissible for the State Government to redetermine the wards in the manner as proposed, because the reason to undertake the entire exercise of delimitation is to somehow divide and distribute number of votes of those wards only from where votes have not been cast in favour of ruling party. Referring to the Notification issued by the State, it is argued that in the order/circular dated 12.6.2024 there is specific mention that there shall be no bifurcation of counting blocks, however, in exercise of delimitation proceedings respondent authorities have bifurcated the counting blocks which is in contravention of the recent instructions issued by the State Government.
17. He submits that proposed delimitation if allowed to take place, then it would change the demography of the population of 27 / 48 reserved categories candidates because population count of scheduled tribe and scheduled castes are dependent on the counting blocks constituted in the year 2011. Further, the effect of delimitation of wards would made the residents to apply afresh for ration card, make necessary amendment in their adhaar card, voter ID card etc. He submits that the entire exercise of delimitation undertaken by respondent authorities is a colourable exercise of power, absolutely arbitrary and suffers from administrative vice. Calling of objections and suggestion by respondent authorities is empty formality, respondent authorities have already decided to delimit the municipal wards in predetermined manner to gain political mileage. He placed reliance on decision in cases of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Devilal, (1986) 1 SCC 657; Atma Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1981) 2 SCC 657.
18. Learned counsel representing petitioners in remaining writ petitions adopted the arguments of learned counsel argued in aforementioned writ petitions.
19. Learned Advocate General for the State would argue that it is the prerogative of the State Government to decide as to when and in what manner the municipal corporation/ municipalities / nagar panchayat and wards in each municipal corporation/ 28 / 48 municipality/panchayat is to be delimited and so long as the process of delimitation is in conformity with the constitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof, the Courts would not interfere with the same. He submits that need to initiate the process of delimitation of municipal corporation/ municipalities /panchayats and their wards arises in view of situation that there are lot of disparities in the wards of municipal corporation/ municipalities/panchayats across the State now as compared to the year 2019 and some municipal corporation/ municipal/ panchayat wards are very large in terms of voters while some are very small. There has been no census since 2011, the only published figures available are that of the Census of 2011 and accordingly, giving true import to the provisions of the Rules of 1994, draft proposals for delimitation of wards of panchayats etc. have been issued, inviting objections/suggestions in regard to proposed limits of wards, the objections, so received within the prescribed time period were duly considered by the authority concerned, and thereafter the proposals for delimitation of panchayat/ municipalities are submitted to the State Government. He submits that process of delimitation is a legislative function, there is no question of malafide in power exercised by the State Government and the instructions issued by the State Government to all the District Collectors from time to time and 29 / 48 broad guidelines, which were kept in mind while the proposals were being sent after inviting objections and considering the same. He submits that while delimitation process, it is practically impossible to arrange wards in the manner so that each one has an identical number of population or voters. Arithmetical exactness or precision is hardly a workable requirement of the Rules of 1994, which clearly says that population shall be considered and distributed as far as practicable. He submits that the State Government is having legislative power for delimitation of wards in the interest of general public at large. Since the action of delimitation of municipal area is legislative function and not adjudicatory process, the right of hearing or principles of natural justice are not applicable. Even there is no provision either under the Act of 1961 or the Rules of 1994 that personal hearing has to be given. Thus, contention of petitioners that their objections have not been decided as per their sweet will, would not come to their rescue. Even the objections/suggestions were called, on receipt thereof some of the suggestions were considered positively and some were dismissed and merely because the objections raised by petitioners were not decided in their favour, does not give cause of action in their favour to file writ petition.
He next contended that when a consequence is 30 / 48 provided in any Rule, the same is mandatory and if not, then it is directory. As Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994 does not provide any consequence, therefore, it is directory in nature and as such, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) vitiates the entire process of delimitation is irrelevant. He submits that the intent and object of the Rules of 1994 is to regulate the extent of wards and how the wards are to regulate is provided in Rule 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1994. Section 10 of Act of 1956 provides for determination of number and extent of wards. The principle of harmonious construction is that the provisions of the Statutes have to be read as a whole by giving harmonious construction to all the provisions of law so that none of the provision is rendered redundant. The essence of harmonious construction is to give effect to both the provisions. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994 cannot be read in isolation, they have to be given harmonious interpretation in the light of other provisions of the Statute; otherwise it would render those provisions nugatory.
He next contended that none of petitioners in these writ petition has been able to show as to what prejudice is going to cause if the counting blocks are disturbed nor is there any pleading to the effect that any fundamental right of any of petitioners is infringed from the process of delimitation. 31 / 48 Furthermore, in most of the constituencies, delimitation has not been done of the entire area. In some municipals, delimitation of certain wards are done, in some no delimitation is done, hence, it is not the position that bulk delimitation has been throughout the State. Delimitation is done only of those areas where it is necessary in view of the Census of 2011 taking into consideration compactness of wards.
He further submitted that arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners based on Notification issued by the State Government on 10.6.2024, has further been amended. On 12.6.2024 further notice was issued mentioning that due to upcoming municipal elections, delimitation process has become inevitable. Under Clause-4 it is clearly mentioned that main consideration for delimitation is the population based on the Census of 2011. It further mentions that if it has become necessary to delimit municipal areas and wards, considering geographical location/status of each ward and average population, delimitation be carried out. From the amended letter/notification for delimitation it is abundantly clear that basis for delimitation and equitable distribution of population and compactness of wards is solely on the basis of census of 2011. Further clarification is made in letter dated 18.6.2024 as to how the population is to be considered and clarified that population has to be strictly on 32 / 48 the basis of census of 2011 only. He submits that the law with regard to determination of delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is very complex. Requirement for delimitation is to issue notification, call objections on proposal, to consider objections and to issue final notification of delimitation. Under the Statute as also the Constitution, there is no constitutional obligation to go on issuing revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received in response to the proposals. Objections which are received have been considered in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. Petitioners in many writ petitions of this batch have chosen to use term for process of delimitation to be 'politically motivated", without there being any specific pleading as to how the State authorities have exercised the proceeding of delimitation nor extracted any political benefit.
20. Reliance is placed on decision rendered in cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Devilal, (1986) 1 SCC 657 Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and others vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others, (1989) 3 SCC 396; State of UP & ors vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & ors, (1995) SCC (2) Suppl. 305; State of Punjab vs. Tehal Singh and others, (2002) 2 SCC 7; British Airways PLC. vs. Union of India & ors, (2002) 2 SCC 95; Balwant Singh and others vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and 33 / 48 others; (2003) 3 SCC 433; Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) and another vs. Delimitation Commission of India and others, (2009) 5 SCC 404; Gramvasi Gram Khari Gram Panchayat Dhamni v The Collector, Baloda Bazar, AIR 2015 CHHATTISGARH 7; Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Punjab; AIR Online 2023 P & H 1357.
21. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in WPC No.3693/2024, adopted submissions advanced by learned Advocate General for the State, and in addition he submitted that challenge in this writ petition is to the Circular dated 10.6.2024 as also public notice issued by respondent No.3 and 4 inviting objections. However, respondent State vide Circular dated 12.06.2024 instructed all the Collectors to ensure that during delimitation process existing counting blocks are not bifurcated in two or more wards under any circumstance. Thereafter, vide Circular dated 14.6.2024 Circular dated 10.6.2024 was amended, the words 'available figures of voters of previous general elections' were deleted and it was directed that delimitation process be carried on the basis of census of 2011. Vide Circular dated 18.6.2024, another amendment was brought in Circular dated 10.6.2024 and the words 'figure of voters of wards as far as practicable be the same' were substituted by "population of wards, as far as practicable, be equivalent to census of 2011'. However, 34 / 48 the petitioner has not challenged the aforementioned circulars and only challenged the Circular dated 10.6.2024 and as such, writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the Prescribed Authority constituted a committee for delimitation of wards, said Committee received various objections in regard to delimitation of extent of wards, which were considered and decided and thereafter only the proposal of delimitation was sent by the Collector to the State Government, which is pending consideration and final notification has yet not been published and therefore, present petition is premature.
22.Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record.
23.Perusal of documents placed along with petition as also reply would show that main ground urged by the petitioners to challenge the entire delimitation process is that based on Census of 2011, earlier in the year 2014 and 2019 delimitation has taken place. Initially, the Town Administration and Development Department, Government of CG, issued letter to all the Collectors of the State of Chhattisgarh for delimiting municipal areas. In the first notification there is mention that consideration should be increase in population of each ward. On 12.6.2024 another letter was issued mentioning that at the time of delimitation, population to be 35 / 48 taken of the Census of 2011 and counting blocks should not be distributed. Another letter was issued on 14.6.2024 clarifying letter dated 10.6.2024 and 12.6.2024. In this letter, it is mentioned that for delimitation, the wards should be created in the manner that the population of each ward, as far as possible, remain one and same and there should be compactness in the ward. It is further mentioned that the procedure of issuing the notice calling objection and publication of wards after delimitation in gazette notification. Yet another letter dated 18.6.2024 was issued mentioning that counting blocks are not to be divided as far as possible and only in urgent situation division is possible and in case of division, number of population of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe be determined on the basis of house list of counting block. On 18.6.2024 further clarification is issued deleting the words 'available figures of voters of previous general elections'.
24.Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions applicable to the facts of case. Section 10 of the Act of 1956 reads thus:-
"10.Determination of number and extent of wards and conduct of elections.- (1) The State Government shall from time to time, by notification in the official gazette, determine the number and extent of wards to be constituted in each municipal area :36 / 48
Provided that the total number of wards shall not be more than seventy and not less than forty in any municipal area.
(2) Only one Councillor shall be elected from each ward.
(3) The formation of the wards shall be made in such a way that the population of each of the wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the city and the area included in the ward is compact.
(4) As soon as the formation of wards of a municipal area is completed, the same shall be reported by the State Government to the State Election Commission."
25.Section 29 of the Act of 1961 is reproduced herein below:-
"29.Determination of number and extent of wards and conduct of elections.- (1) The State Government shall from lime to lime, by notification in the official gazette, determine the number and extent of wards to be constituted for each Municipality :Provided that the total number of wards shall not be more than forty and not less than fifteen. (2) Only one Councillor shall be elected from each ward.
(3) The formation of the wards shall be made in such a way that the population of each of the wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Municipal area and the area included in the ward is compact.
(4) As soon as the formation of wards of a Municipality is completed, the same shall be reported by the State Government to the State Election Commission."
26.Afore quoted two provisions under both the Statutes, deal with one and same function of the State Government but one 37 / 48 for municipality and other for municipal corporation. Procedure for determination of number and extent of wards is prescribed under the Rules of 1994 i.e. Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994. Rule 2 (c) defines 'municipal' which means any municipal council or nagar panchayat constituted under the Act. Rule 2 (e) defines 'population' which means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. Rule 3 deals with division of municipal area into wards. Unamended Rule 3 (2) reads as under:-
"(2) population of every municipal area on dividing by the number of wards as determined for that municipal area, the quotient so arrived shall be the average population of a ward in which a variation upto 15 per cent may be allowed."
27.Rule 3 (2) was amended in the year 2014, which is as follows:-
"(2) The formation of wards, as far as practicable shall be made in such a way that the population of each of the wards be the same in all wards throughout the city and the area included in the wards be a compact area."
28.Rule 3 (3) provides that area comprises within every ward shall be compact. Rule 6 deals with preparation of proposal to determine the extent of wards. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 38 / 48 envisages that proposal to determine the extent of wards shall be prepared by the Deputy Collector as nominated by the Collector of the District in which the Municipality is situated and any information as called for by such nominated Deputy Collector from Chief Municipal Officer, for which the Chief Municipal Officer shall be bound to make available, Rule 6 (2) deals with relevant information which shall form part of the proposals to be prepared by Deputy Collector and Rule 8 talks of disposal of the objections/suggestions as received and final publication.
29.Similar are the provisions under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 also. In other words, the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 are in pari materia with the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994.
30.It is not in dispute that proposals for limitation were submitted based on the letters issued by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that objections/suggestions were called, many of petitioners herein submitted objections/suggestions on the preliminary publication of delimitation of extent of wards and as per submission of learned Advocate General for the State, all the objections were considered, some of them, which were found considerable, were accepted and some were rejected.
39 / 48
31.Main contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners is that delimitation has already been done in the year 2014 and 2019, therefore, further delimitation is not required. This argument is objected by learned Advocate General for the State stating that even after delimitation process carried out in the year 2014 based on Census of 2011, earlier government has conducted delimitation in the year 2019, which was not done properly as there was no compactness of wards.
32.Part-IX of the Constitution of India deals with panchayats. Definition of district', 'Gram Sabha','intermediate level', 'panchayat', 'panchayat area', 'population' and 'village' is given under Article 243. The word 'population' is defined in Article 243 (f), which means 'population' as ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published.
33.Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India deals with municipalities. Article 243-P is definition clause which provides definition of 'committee', 'district', 'metropolitan area', 'municipal area', 'municipality', 'panchayat' and 'population'. Definition of 'population' given in sub-clause (g) of Article 243Q means 'population' as ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published.
40 / 48
34.From perusal of afore quoted provisions under the Constitution of India, the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994, it is apparent that delimitation process is a legislative function of the State. It is not the case of petitioners in this batch of writ petitions that preliminary notification, as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994, is not published. Their submission is that objections were submitted but the same were not considered in appropriate manner. In reply, the pleadings and submission on behalf of the State Government is that objections were duly considered, some were allowed and some were rejected.
35.In case of Association of residents of Mhow (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with aforementioned facts of the case, has observed that delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is very complex and lengthy process, it shall be only after consideration of objections and suggestions which may have been received by the Commission before the specified date. The Commission is not required to hold public meeting in each and every constituency. The Commission is not under any legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. As the exercise of the delimitation is not with reference to any 41 / 48 particular constituency, the suggestions or objections, as the case may be, in respect of one constituency may have their impact at least on one or more of the adjoining constituencies. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that as per the rules, the proceedings have to be conducted, preliminary notification is to be issued, objection is to be called and it is to be decided. In the case at hand, this procedure of calling objection by issuing preliminary notification and deciding the same has been followed and completed by the respondent authorities.
36.In case of Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with case of delimitation of panchayats has observed thus:-
"44. It is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will be delimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner in which the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas and the constituencies are delimited in conformity with the constitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof, the courts cannot interfere with the same. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2. In this case, the petitioner-mineowners, had among others, challenged the method prescribed by the legislature for recovering the cess under the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 on the ground that it was unconstitutional. The majority of the Bench held that the method is a matter of convenience and, though relevant, has to be tested in the light of other relevant circumstances. It is not permissible to challenge the vires of a statute solely on the ground that the method adopted for the recovery of the impost 42 / 48 can and generally is adopted in levying a duty of excise.
45. What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v Delimitation Commission3. In that case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said constituency which had been taken away. This Court held that the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of sections 8 and 43 / 48 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good reason for such a provision because if the orders made under sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Although an order under Section 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and published under Section 10 [1] of that Act is not part of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 [4] of that Act puts such an order in the same position as a law made by the Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article 327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and Sections 2 (kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged or the Court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing 44 / 48 was given. Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the notification for holding the elections was issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge was made after the notification for the election was issued on 31st August, 1994."
37.So far as submission of Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for petitioners in WPC No.3754/2024, with respect to division of counting blocks based on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devilal (supra), is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case considered the provision under Section 106 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1962 to modify or alter constituency of a block once delimited by a notification issued thereunder after the process of election of members of Janpad Panchyat has started. Section 106 of the MP Panchayat Act, 1962 provides for division of blocks into constituencies. Specific provision with respect to division of blocks is envisaged under the MP Panchayat Act, 1962 and further, sub-section (3) of Section 106 envisages that where there are members belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes residing within the blocks, such number of seats shall be reserved for the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes on janganana panchayat. In the 45 / 48 aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that alteration of limits of a block can be affected by the State Government after following the procedure prescribed under Section 370 of the Act. Hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that alteration of blocks is not permissible is not sustainable.
38.Argument raised by learned Advocate General is that to bring compactness in the ward, exercise of delimitation process is initiated and further in the letter issued by the State Government, it is made clear that only in extreme urgent situation division of blocks can be done and in case of division under the population block, number of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes shall be done based on the house listing of janganna block. From the letter it is appearing that the State Government has taken care that ordinarily blocks are not to be bifurcated, only in exceptional cases has permitted for division of counting blocks.
39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
40.In the case at hand, the procedure prescribed under Section 29 of the Act of 1961, Section 10 of the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 1994, has been followed. As discussed above, exercise of delimitation of wards by the State Government is a legislative function, and therefore, the proceedings of delimitation can be open to judicial review only where the procedure prescribed for the same is not followed. If the State Government found that delimitation of wards is necessary for maintaining compactness of the wards and it is in conformity with the Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994, the proceedings cannot be put to scrutiny of the Court.
41. Provisions under the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1961 envisage that the Government shall time to time by Notification in the official gazette can determine the number and extent of wards, to regulate the proceedings of the 47 / 48 delimitation of number and extent of wards the Rules of 1994 have been incorporated in exercise of the powers under Section 433 of the Act of 1956 and Section 355 of the Act of 1961. Bare perusal of the provision would show that the State Government has all the powers to delimit the wards time to time, subject to the parameters as envisaged under relevant provisions and following the procedure prescribed under law.
42.So far as submission of Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for respective petitioners that the State Government is infact attempting to gerrymandering is concerned, no specific pleading is made to show as to how the exercise of delimitation initiated by the State Government is for unfair advantage. Merely pleading one line or making submission taking the observation made by the Court in some judgment will not suffice. Petitioner (s), who raises ground levelling factual allegation has to put specific material facts in support of such pleadings and submissions. In absence thereof, such grounds have no legs to stand. Hence, the argument raised by Mr. Amrito Das and others is not having any foundation to stand and therefore falls.
43.So far as submission of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate that State cannot supplement or supplant reason for delimitation is concerned, the first letter/circular issued in this regard is 48 / 48 dated 10.6.2024, thereafter on 12.6.2024, 14.6.2024 and lastly on 18.6.2024. The clarificatory letters have been issued in very short intervals clarifying the position. It is not the case that the State Government is making an attempt to justify their act by issuing other letters after completion of the entire proceeding or completion of all major procedure for the same after challenge to action is made. Hence, I do not find any merit in the said submission of learned counsel for petitioner.
44.After giving minute consideration to the grounds raised, submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties, the provisions applicable and the law laid down Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the delimitation proceedings and Notifications.
45.For the foregoing discussions, the above writ petitions challenging the proceedings and notifications of delimitation of different municipalities and municipal corporations fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR Sd/-
ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Digitally signed
by SYED Judge
ROSHAN ZAMIR
ALI
Date: 2024.10.22
18:53:22 +0530
roshan/-