Sita Ram Dwivedi v. State of U. P — 1987 DIGILAW 582 (ALL)

JUDGMENT S.C.Mathur, J. - The petitioners in these two petitions have prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary, the Secretary., Local Self Government, Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Local Bodies. Uttar Pradesh to arrange constitution of the elected Nagar Mahapalikas, Nagar Pailikas, Town Areas and Notified Areas in the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with law without further delay and within the time to be specified by this Court. At the time of arguments Sri Sita Ram Dwivedi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8043 of 86 and Sri K.M.N. Chak, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8199 of 1986 made statements to the effect that they were confining their relief to the constitution of Nagar Mahapalikas in the KAVAL Towns only. Accordingly, we are concerned in these petitions with the constitution of the elected Nagar Mahapalikas in the KAVAL Towns only. 2. Sita Ram Dwivedi has claimed himself to be the President of the legal cell of apolitical party (Lok Dal) of Uttar Pradesh. Dr. Som Nath Shukla, the petitioner in the other writ petition has claimed himself to be a citizen of India having full faith in the constitution of India. He has stated that he was a well known Gandhian and had held the office of the Honorary Magistrate. He has also claimed himself to be the active worker and active member of the Bhartiya Janta Party. He claims himself to a believer in democratic institutions. The plea of both the petitioners is that in the state of Uttar Pradesh, Nagar Mahapalikas were constituted in June, 1971 and their period of five years expired in June, 1976 and thereafter no election was held to constitute the elected Nagar Mahapalikas and instead Administrators were appointed who are still continuing. Their claim is that the continuance of the Administrators, instead of holding elections, is against the democratic principle adopted in the constitution of India. The notification under which the Nagar Mahapalikas were constituted is alleged to be dated 29th June, 1971. It has been stated that the electoral rolls have been amended since 1971 till 1981 for holding elections to the Parliament as well as the State Legislative Assembly and, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding elections to the Nagar Mahapalikas. 3. The notification under which the Nagar Mahapalikas were constituted is alleged to be dated 29th June, 1971. It has been stated that the electoral rolls have been amended since 1971 till 1981 for holding elections to the Parliament as well as the State Legislative Assembly and, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding elections to the Nagar Mahapalikas. 3. Despite notice, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties to justify the failure to hold the elections. Only an application was made for deferring the hearing of these petitions so that similar petitions filed at Allahabad may be disposed of. We find no reason to defer the hearing of these petitions. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. 'The Preamble' of the Constitution does constitute India into a Democratic Secular Republic. The functioning of its various institutions should therefore be informed by democratic ideals. These democratic ideals have been specifically incorporated in the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. II of 1959). Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute any local area to be a city. This constitution is made by publication of notification in the official gazette. Section 4 provides that in every city there shall be a Mahapalika which shall be a bodycorporate and will have perpetual succession and common seal. Under Section 5 (a) a Mahapalika is constituted as an authority charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 6 provides for constitution of the Mahapalika. It mentions that a Mahapalika shall consist of a Nagar Pramukh and Sabhasads whose number shall be such as may be fixed by the State Government through notification in the official gazette but not exceeding one hundred, Paden Sadasyas comprised of members of the House of People and the State Legislative Assembly whose constituencies included the whole or part of the city and Paden Sadasyas comprised of members of the Council of State and the State Legislative Council who have their residence in the city. Subsection (2) provides that Sabhasads shall be elected at ward elections. Sec. 24 prescribes qualification for a candidate seeking election to the office of Sabhasads. Sec 25 prescribes the disqualifications for holding the office of Sabhasad. Sec. 10(1) of the Act lays down that there shall be an Up Nagar Pramukh for each Mahapalika. Subsection (2) provides that Sabhasads shall be elected at ward elections. Sec. 24 prescribes qualification for a candidate seeking election to the office of Sabhasads. Sec 25 prescribes the disqualifications for holding the office of Sabhasad. Sec. 10(1) of the Act lays down that there shall be an Up Nagar Pramukh for each Mahapalika. Section 11 prescribes the qualification which a candidate, aspiring for the office of Nagar Pramukh and Upa NagarPramukh, must possess. Section 12 (1) lays down that the Nagar Pramukh and Upa Nagar Pramukh shall be elected as soon as may be after the election of Sabhasads has been completed. Subsection (3) provides the manner of election of the Nagar Pramukh and Upa Nagar Pramukh. It lays down that they shall be elected by the members in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. After the process of election is over the constitution of the Mahapalika is required to be notified under Section 9 by publication in official gazette. The duty to notify by publication is cast upon the State Government. Section 8 prescribes the duration of Mahapalika. It fixes the period of five years from the date of notification issued under Section 9. Under the first proviso to this section the State Government is competent by notification in the official gazette to extend from time to time the term of the Mahapalika. So, however, that such extension does not, in the aggregate, exceed one year. The second proviso lays down that the State Government may, in the case of some grave emergency or other similar cause, similarly extend the term of Mahapalika for a further period or periods which in the aggregate will not exceed one year. Under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 8 A it is provided that where the term or the extended term of the Mahapalika has expired and a new Mahapalika has not been constituted, then until the due constitution of the new Mahapalika under Sabhasads and the members of all Special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub Committees constituted or appointed under Sections 95 and 97 and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika shall vacate their respective offices and all such Special Committees, Joint Committees and Sub Committees shall stand dissolved. Clause (b) provides that all powers, functions and duties of the Mahapalikas, its Nagar Pramukh, UpaNagar Pramukh, Executive committee, Development Committee and other Committees appointed under clause (e) of Section 5 and of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall be vested in and be exercised, performed and discharged by an officer appointed in that behalf by the State Government who shall be referred to as the Administrator and the Administrator shall be deemed in law to be the Mahapalika, the Nagar Praraukh, the UpaNagar Pramukh, Executive Committee, Development Committee or other Committees or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari as the occasion may require. Sub Section (2) provides that necessary elections shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the constitution of the new Mahapalika within a period of one year from the date of appointment of the Administrator under subsection (1). Under the proviso to this subsection the State Government is competent to extend the period so, however, that such extension does not, in the aggregate, exceed one year. This section was added through President's Act 12 of 1973 and subsequently by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1974 with effect from 2nd September, 1973. 5. From this survey of the provisions of the Act made above it would appear that the legislature intended that there should be, in each city, an elected Nagar Mahapalika. The elected Nagar Mahapalikas were constituted and they remained in office upto June, 1976 and thereafter, there has been no elected Nagar Mahapalika and the functions of the Nagar Mahapalika, Nagar Pramukh and UpaNagar Pramukh are being performed by the Administrator appointed by the State Government. In view of the fact that people of India have adopted democracy as a way of life, the continuance of Administrator cannot be countenanced. The State Government has also not been able to justify its failure to hold elections so as to constitute Nagar Mahapalikas in accordance with Sections 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any justification for not holding the elections the petitioners are entitled to the mandamus prayed for by them. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any justification for not holding the elections the petitioners are entitled to the mandamus prayed for by them. In taking this view we are fortified by the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Om Prakash Sood and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 53, and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lachiman Singh Kamboj v. State of Haryana and others, 1987 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases, 198. Both these cases related to elections to local bodies. The High Courts issued writs commanding the State Governments and the concerned authorities to hold and complete elections within the time fixed by the Courts. Against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Special Leave Petition was filed before their lordships of the Supreme Court which was registered as a petition for special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 2974 of 1986. The petition was dismissed on 14.3.1987. 6. In view of the above, the writ petitions are partly allowed and writs of mandamus are issued in both the petitions commanding the opposite parties to constitute Nagar Mahapalikas in the KAVAL Towns of the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 particularly Sections 6, 10, 11 and 12 thereof. This shall be done within six months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Local Self Department, Lucknow and the Director, Local Bodies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Since the State Government has not filed any counter affidavit, there shall be no orders as to costs. Per Sagir Ahmad, J. 7. I have had the advantage of reading the detailed reasons given by my brother S. C. Mathur, J. in support of our short order dated 14.5.85. But I propose to give my own reasons for coming to the same conclusion. 8. Nagar Mahapalikas (Municipal Corporations), Municipalities, Town Areas and Notified Areas are the units of democratic institution where people govern themselves through their own elected representatives. These units as also the Panchayats at the village level represent the basic foundation or the democratic India. But I propose to give my own reasons for coming to the same conclusion. 8. Nagar Mahapalikas (Municipal Corporations), Municipalities, Town Areas and Notified Areas are the units of democratic institution where people govern themselves through their own elected representatives. These units as also the Panchayats at the village level represent the basic foundation or the democratic India. The democracy as we practise in our country has permeated into every sphere of life and the institution has been nurtured and grown with complete and total dedication of the whole of the Indian masses whose sentiments as to the form of the Government is expressed regularly at the time of general elections, be it to elect the Members of the State Legislature of Members of Parliament. Every person who is inducted in the Government on a ministerial post including the Prime Minister has to be a Member of the Legislature which of course, comprised of the elected representatives. Even if a person is a member of the Legislative council of the State or Rajya Sabha, he has to be an elected member except a few who are nominated members These elected representatives of the people govern the people and that is why a 'government in a democratic country is known as the government by the people, of the people and for the people. 9. As pointed out earlier, Nagar Mahapalika constitute the basic unit of 4he democratic institution under which people elect their representatives to rule them within a particular municipal area. 10. The Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam enacted in 1959 is an Act under which people elect their representatives for governing them within the area known as 'City' as defined under the Act, The various provisions of the Adhiniyam have been noticed and scrutinised by ray brother Mathur, J. and I need not repeat or reproduce those provisions here. 11. Under Section 5 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (for short, Adhiniyam) the Mahapalika consists of a Nagar Pramukh and (i) Sabhasads (ii) Paden Sadasy is comprising all members of the House of People and she State Legislative Assembly whose constituencies include the whole or part of the city (iii) Paden Sadasyas comprising all members of the Council of State and the State Legislative council who have their residence in the city. 12. Section 6(2) provides that Sabhasads shall be elected at ward elections. 12. Section 6(2) provides that Sabhasads shall be elected at ward elections. The Government also has the right to nominate certain persons in the contingencies specified in the Adhiniyam. There is also a provision for reservation for and representation of the scheduled castes. Section 8 provides that a Mahapalika shall continue for five years from the date of notification issued in pursuance of section 9 that the Mahapalika shall continue for five years from the date of notification issued in pursuance of section 9 that the Mahapalika has been duly constituted. Section 9 provides as under: 9. As soon as may be after the election of the Sabhasads and the Nagar Pramukh of a Mahapalika for any city has been completed, the State Government shall notify by publication in the official Gazette that the Mahapalika for that city has been duly constituted. 13. The Adhiniyam also makes a provision for the election of Nagar Pramukh and UpNagar Pramukh. 14. In view of the provisions contained in section 9 of the Adhiniyam a Mahapalika is constituted for a period of five years after which fresh elections have to be held to constitute a new Mahapalika. Under the prov so to section 8, the Government has the right to extend the term of the Mahapalika from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, so however, that the extension does not in the aggregate exceed one year. 15. Under the prov so to section 8, the Government has the right to extend the term of the Mahapalika from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, so however, that the extension does not in the aggregate exceed one year. 15. Section 8A which was inserted in the Adhiniyam by the President Act No. 12 of 1973 which was subsequently replaced by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1974 with effect from 2.9.73 provides as under: 8A (1) where the term or the extended term of the Mahapalika has expired and a new Mahapalika has not been constituted, then until the due constitution of the new Mahapalika under section 9 (a) notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Nagar Pramukh, the UpaNagar Pramukh, the Sabhasads, and the members of all Special Committees, Joint Committees and SubCommittees constituted or appointed under Sections 95 and 97 and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Mahapalika shall vacate their respective offices, and all such Special Committees, Joint Committees and SubCommittees shall stand dissolved; (b) all powers, functions and duties of the Mahapalikas, its Nagar Pramukh, UpaNagar Pramukh, Executive Committee, Development Committee and other Committees appointed under clause (e) of Section 5 and of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall be vested in and be exercised, performed and discharged by an officer appointed in that behalf by the State Government (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator) and the Administrator shall be deemed in law to be the Mahapalika, the Nagar Pramukh, the UpaNagar Pramukh, Executive Committee, Development Committee or other Committees, or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari as the occasion may require; (c) subject to any general or special orders of the State Government, the Administrator may, in respect of all or any of the powers conferred on him by clause (b) (1) consult such committee or other body, if any, constituted in such manner as may be specified by him in that behalf; or (ii) delegate subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, the powers so conferred, .to any committee or other body constituted and subclause (i), to be specified by him in that behalf; (d) such salary and allowances of the administrator as may be fixed by general or special orders of the state Government in that behalf shall be paid out of the Mahapalika Fund. (2) Necessary elections shall be held in accordance with the provisions of this Act for the constitution of the new Mahapalika within a period of one year from the date of appointment of the Administrator under subsection (1): Provided that the State Government may from time to time, by order published in the official Gazette, extend the said period, so, however, that such extension does not in the' aggregate exceed one year. 16. A perusal of the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 8A will indicate that on the expiry of the term or the extended terra of the Mahapalika and till such time as the new Mahapalika is constituted, the powers, functions and duties of the Mahapalika, its Nagar Pramukh, UpaNagar Pramukh, Executive Committee, Development Committee and other Committees appointed under clause (e) of Section 5 and of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari are vested in and are exercised, performed and discharged by an officer known as the 'Administrator' appointed by the State Government. Subsection (2) of Section 8A and its Proviso are important, while subsection (2) provides that fresh elections shall be held within one year from the date of appointment of the Administrator under Subsection (1), it is provided by the Proviso that the State Government may from time to time by order published in the Official Gazette extend the said period, so, however, that such extension does not in the aggregate exceed one year. The words the said period referred to in the Proviso obviously mean the period of one year from the date of appointment of the Administrator within which the elections, are to be held. 17. It appears that the State Government has not extended the period of one year by any order published in the Official Gazette but the period for holding the election has been extended from time to time by Legislative enactments, 18. As stated above, Section 8A was introduced in the Act by U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1973 with effect from 12,3.1973 which was followed by President's Act No. 12 of 1973. President's Act No. 12 of 1973 was repealed and reenacted by U. P. Act No. 25 of 1974 with effect from 13.8.1974. Subsequently by U.P. Act 13 of 1975 with effect from September 17, 1974, the period of one year indicated in section 8A (2) was changed to two years. President's Act No. 12 of 1973 was repealed and reenacted by U. P. Act No. 25 of 1974 with effect from 13.8.1974. Subsequently by U.P. Act 13 of 1975 with effect from September 17, 1974, the period of one year indicated in section 8A (2) was changed to two years. Thereafter by U.P. Ordinance No. 18 of 1976 with effect from 21.1.1976 followed by U.P. Act 41 of 1976 with effect from 15.9.1976, figures two years were substituted by three years . Then by U.P. Act 9 of 1977 with effect from 27.4.77, the period of three years referred to above was reduced to one year. By section 7 of the said Act it was provided that the elections of the Mahapalika shall be held by 31.3.1978. This was followed by U.P. Act 3 of 1978 in which it was provided that the elect ion shall be held by 31.12.78. Then came the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Third Amendment) Act, U.P. Act 35 of 1978, by which section 11 A, Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Adhiniyam were amended and Sections 39 and 40 were substituted by new sections. Sections 41, 46, 48, 61, 177 & 472 were also amended,6 Section 49 was substituted. This Act also amended certain provisions of the U.P., Municipalities Act, and the U.P. Town Areas Act but we are not concerned with those provisions in the present petition. Section 24 of the said Act, namely, U.P. Act No. 35 of 1978, provides as under: 24. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 8A of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 or any other law for the time being in force, the elections for reconstitution of an Manapalikas, the powers, functions and duties where of stand vested in the administrators on the commencement of this Act, shall be held in accordance with the provisions of that Adhiniyam as amended by this Act, by March 31, 1979. 19. Since certain provisions relating to election were, amended, it was but natural to provide for a transitory provision which is contained in section 24 extracted. 20. The U.P. Act 35 of 19J8 was followed by U.P. Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979, U.P. Act No. 9 of 1979. It was provided in the Prefatory Note as under: 1................................ 2. 20. The U.P. Act 35 of 19J8 was followed by U.P. Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979, U.P. Act No. 9 of 1979. It was provided in the Prefatory Note as under: 1................................ 2. Similarly, the date for reconstitution of the Nagar Mahapalikas was extended upto March 31, 1979 by Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Local SelfGovernment Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1978, but it is not possible to hold elections for the Purpose by that date and as such the period has to be extended by six months. 21. Section 3 of this Act amended section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 and the date by which elections were to be held for constituting new Mahapalika was extended upto September 30, 1979. It will be noticed that by U.P. Act 9 of 1979 no amendments were made in the Adhiniyam. It may be stated that this Act was proceeded by U. P. Ordinance No. 5 of 1979. Thereafter the Governor promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, (U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1980) by which Section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 was amended and the date of Election was extended upto 30th September, 1980. This Ordinance was followed by U.P. Ordinance No. 6 of 1980 which reenacted all the provisions of U.P. ordinance No. 3 of 1980. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the U.P. Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, U.P. Act No. 8 of 1980. By these Ordinances and the Act, the parent Act, namely, the Adhiniyam was not amended. This Act was followed by U.P. Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (U.P. Ordinance No. 14 of 1980) by which again Section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 was amended and the date by which elections were to be held was extended upto June 30, 1981. This Ordinance did not introduce any amendment in the parent Act. This Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, U.P. Act No. 22 of 1980, reenacting the provisions of U.P. Ordinance No. 14 of 1980. By this Act also the parent Act was not amended and remained untouched. But by an amendment introduced in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978, the date by which elections were to be held was extended upto December 31, 1981. 22. By this Act also the parent Act was not amended and remained untouched. But by an amendment introduced in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978, the date by which elections were to be held was extended upto December 31, 1981. 22. Thereafter another ordinance, namely, The Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, U.P. Ordinance No. 30 of 1981 was promulgated and by an amendment in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978, the date by which elections were to be held was extended upto December, 1982. This Ordinance did not introduce any amendment in the parent Adhiniyam. 23. By U.P. Ordinance No. 21 of 1982, which came into force with effect from 23.4.1982, section 8AA was introduced in the parent Adhiniyam under which it was provided that if any local area was constituted as the 'City' under section 3 of the Adhiniyam then until due constitution of the Mahapalika in such area, the municipal administration shall be vested in an Administrator. This Ordinance was replaced by U.P. Ordinance No. 27 of 1982 which repealed and reenacted the provisions of Ordinance No. 21 of 1982. 24. Thereafter the Governor promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1982, U.P. Ordinance No. 38 of 1982 by which sections 25, 112 A and 140 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 were amended. The provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act and U.P. Town Areas Act were also amended but we are not concerned with those amendments in the present petition. This Ordinance was followed by U.P. Ordinance No. 39 of 1982 by which Section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 was, amended and it was provided that the elections shall be held by 31st December, 1983. 25. Thereafter U.P., Ordinance No. 18 of 1983 was promulgated which Was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 (U, P. Act 15 of 1983) and by an amendment in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978. the elections were promised to be held by December 31, 1983 as was done by U.P. Ordinance No. 39 of 1982, The Governor of U.P. promulgated yet another Ordinance, namely, U.P. Ordinance No. 48 of 1983 by which section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 was amended and the date of election was extended upto December 31, 1984. the elections were promised to be held by December 31, 1983 as was done by U.P. Ordinance No. 39 of 1982, The Governor of U.P. promulgated yet another Ordinance, namely, U.P. Ordinance No. 48 of 1983 by which section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 was amended and the date of election was extended upto December 31, 1984. This was followed by U.P. Ordinance No. 29 of 1984 and the date of election was extended upto December 31, 1985. This Ordinance was replaced by U.P. Ordinance No. 6 of 1985 which reenacted the earlier provisions and laid down that the elections shall be held by December 31, 1985. 26. U.P. Ordinance No. 6 of 1985 was replaced by U.P. Ordinance No. 21 of 1985 which, in its turn, was replaced by U.P. Act 4 of 1986 which provided that the elections would be held by December 31, 1986. 27. The last Ordinance is U.P. Ordinance No. 15 of 1986 by which elections are required to be held by December 31, 1987. This Ordinance has since been replaced by U.P. Act 3 of 1987. 28. It will be seen from the legislative history described above that the elections to constitute the Nagar Mahapalikas have not been held for about 10 years and through the intervention of the Legislature, the date of election has been postponed from time to time. The reasons for not holding the elections so far have not been indicated to us by the opposite parties who have not filed the counter affidavit. The fact remains that inspite of the provisions having been made by different amending Acts and Ordinances that the elections will be held by a particular date, the opposite parties have not cared to hold the elections to constitute new Nagar Mahapalikas. 29. The Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1978, U.P. Act 35 of 1978, came into force with effect from 30.12.1978. Section 24 of this Act was marginally headed as Transitory Provisions . It was provided therein that the election for reconstitution of all Mahapalikas would be held in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam by March 31, 1979. Section 24 containing the Transitory Provision was enacted as U.P. Act 35 of 1978 had also introduced certain amendments in the parent Adhiniyam. It was provided therein that the election for reconstitution of all Mahapalikas would be held in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam by March 31, 1979. Section 24 containing the Transitory Provision was enacted as U.P. Act 35 of 1978 had also introduced certain amendments in the parent Adhiniyam. On the enforcement of U.P. Act 35 of 1978, it must have been expected, specially in view of the Transitory Provision indicated in section 24, that the opposite parties would proceed to hold the elections by 31st March, 1979 and constitute the Mahapalikas in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam. But the opposite parties instead of holding the elections in right earnest got the dates of election postponed from time to time for about 14 years through legislative measures, namely, Ordinances and the Act which were promulgated in the meantime from time to time. The hopes and aspirations generated and kindled by U.P. Act 35 of 1978 which provided that elections would be held by 31st March, 1979 were put out by subsequent legislative measures by making successive and repeated amendments in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978. We wonder whether recourse could be had to the transitory provision for not giving effect to the main provisions of the parent Adhiniyam. 30. When an Act is replaced by another Act or when an Act is amended by an Amending Act or where an Act is reenacted after repeal of an earlier Act, there is always a transitional period for which a provision is made in the Act as to how the situation obtaining during that period would be governed. But it does not mean that the transitory provision can be invoked to carry the transitional period into the realm of perpetuity so as to defeat the parent Act. This is exactly what has happened in the present case where a duly elected Mahapalika has not been allowed to be constituted by postponing the date of election through successive legislative amendments in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 which was meant only for the transitional period. This is exactly what has happened in the present case where a duly elected Mahapalika has not been allowed to be constituted by postponing the date of election through successive legislative amendments in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 which was meant only for the transitional period. The aspirations of the people cannot be allowed to be frustrated in the above manner and the right of franchise secured to them by the parent Adhiniyam cannot be allowed to be kept in suspense through amendments in section 24 of U.P. Act 35 of 1978 which was meant only to last for a while, yielding ultimately to the main provisions of the Adhiniyam. 31. It will also be noticed that under section 8A as also under section 8AA all powers have been vested in the Administrator. In the case of Mahapalika, the Administrator exercises all functions of Mahapalika, Mayor (Nagar Pramukh) and Deputy Mayor (Up Nagar Pramukh) and the various committees constituted under the Adhiniyam whereas the concept of democracy is decentralisation of power and its distribution so as to prevent its concentration in one hand. The opposite parties by not holding the elections have perpetuated the rule of autocracy and have allowed the Administrator to govern the affairs of the Mahapalika for the last about 10 years. Autocracy cannot be equated with democracy or a Local Self Government comprising of the elected representatives of the people. 32. As observed earlier, the court cannot remain a mute spectator to the inaction of the opposite parties in not holding the elections to constitute new Mahapalikas in accordance with the mandate of the parent Adhiniyam. 33. We have been informed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties that in a similar writ petition at Allahabad, a counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the State Government in which it has been set out that steps were being taken to hold the elections by 31st December, 1987 in accordance with the mandate of U.P. Act 3 of 1987. Be that as it may, the fact remains that a counter affidavit in the instant case has not been filed and looking to the past conduct of the opposite parties who have perpetuated the infamy of broken promises, one cannot resist himself in quoting Ghalib who said: ..... Be that as it may, the fact remains that a counter affidavit in the instant case has not been filed and looking to the past conduct of the opposite parties who have perpetuated the infamy of broken promises, one cannot resist himself in quoting Ghalib who said: ..... (Note: quotation in under script) (I have survived on your promises only because I knew that they would not be fulfilled. If I were to believe that you would keep your promise, I would have died of happiness). 34. Every drama has an end. The present drama consisting of several episodes of broken promises must also come to an end by the force of the judicial verdict in consonance with the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Om Prakash Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1985 HP 53 and that of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lachiman Singh Kamboj v. State of Haryana and others, 1987 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 198. The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has the seal of approval of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 35. We have, therefore, no option but to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to hold the elections to constitute Mahapalikas in all Cities governed by the provisions of the Adhinivam within six months. Let a mandamus issue accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.