Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for petitioner submits that like the bolt from the blue impugned order dated 10/7/18 vide P/8 was passed by the Commission holding in abeyance the process of election by acceding to the request of State Govt. which was of the view that in absence of publication of notification in the gazette u/R 7 of M.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994 ("Reservation Rules" for brevity) it would be unlawful to proceed with the election. 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that despite the last tenure of Municipality being over on 12/2/18 and the process of election having commenced on 9/7/18 with much delay, the Commission on 10/7/18 without any authority of law has stalled the election process.

9.1 Since Rule 11-A of Nirvachan Niyam has also been invoked by the Commission to pass the impugned order, it is essential to discuss the parameters of this Rule. Rule 11-A of Nirvachan Niyam added by way of amendment w.e.f. 7/7/97 empowers the Commission to issue special or general directions provided the same are not inconsistent with the provision of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 for achieving object of fair and free election. The terminology used in Rule 11-A reveals the same to be of generic nature but to avoid misuse of this general and wide power, the authority of the Commission is circumscribed by prohibiting exercise of the same for any cause inconsistent with the provisions of 1961 Act and to ensure the ultimate goal of holding free and fair election. Thus the power u/S. 11-A cannot be exercised if the same leads to violation of any provision of 1961 Act. 9.2 Testing the factual matrix of the instant case on the anvil of aforesaid provisions of Rule 23 & 11-A of Nirvachan Niyam, it is seen that Commission in the instant case while passing the impugned order Annexure P/8 (dated 10/7/18) has stalled the election process commenced on 9/7/18 (by publication of the election programme under Rule 21 and 22 of Nirvachan Niyam). While doing so the Commission acceded to the directives of the State of stalling the election process on the pretext that no publication in the gazette had taken place as per Rule 7 of Reservation Rules of reservation of seats in terms of Sec. 29-A of 1961 Act and u/R. 6 of Reservation Rules and thus in the absence of proper reservation of wards, election result would be polluted.

10. Leaving aside the cause shown in the impugned order for stalling the election process, it is quite clear that the provision of Rule 23, which relates exclusively to extension and not to stalling of election process, could not have been invoked by the Commission. The power of stalling of election process which has commenced by publication of election programme is not vested with the Commission and therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that Commission had no power on 10/7/18 (vide P/8) under Rule 11-A or Rule 23 of Nirvachan Niyam to stall the election process which had commenced on 9/7/18 by publication/announcement of election programme under Rule 21 and 22 of Nirvachan Niyam.

Regarding Question No. (i), (iii) and (iv)

11. Coming to the reasons assigned by the State Govt. to justify stalling of election process which have been assigned by the Commission for stalling the election process once commenced, deserves consideration at the hands of this court to do complete justice.

11.1 The first reason assigned is the non publication of notification regarding reservation of wards as per Section 29-A of 1961 Act r/w Rule 7 of Reservation Rules.

11.2 Indisputably the five years period since holding of first meeting on 13/2/13 after last election of municipality in question was to be over on 13/2/18, the State and the Commission were thus duty bound as per Article 243 (U) r/w Article 243 (ZA) and section 36 of 1961 Act to hold and complete the election to elect a new body to the Municipality in question before the aforesaid date i.e. 13/2/18. The first step to achieve this objective was to be taken by the State by determining the number and extent of wards u/S. 29 of 1961 Act r/w Reservation Rules. This step which ought to have been taken much prior to expiry of five years tenure was taken with much delay vide P/4 (dated 14/5/18) by publication of notification in official gazette u/S. 29 of 1961 Act. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority (Collector, Shivpuri) u/S. 29-A of 1961 Act r/w Reservation Rules issued notice on 26/5/18 vide P/5 inviting objections from all concerned as regards reservation of wards for SC/ST/OBC/Woman. It appears that no objection was received and thus intimation regarding reservation of wards for different categories as arrived at by the Prescribed Authority (Collector Shivpuri) under Rule 6 of Reservation Rules was forwarded to the State in terms of Rule 7 of Reservation Rules. Thereafter vide P/6 final voter list was published on 2/7/18. Further the Commission vide P/7 dated 9/7/18 declared election programme and published the same as per Rule 21 and 22 of Nirvachan Niyam. On the very next day i.e. 10/7/18 vide P/8, the Commission acceding to the request of the State (with great diffidence and hesitation as is evident from the revelation made in the return of the Commission) stalled the process of election to the Municipality in question which had commended on 9/7/18.