Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1403 (PNJ)

Surat Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-10-05

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a mandamus for setting-aside the delimitation of the wards done by the respondents in their meeting held on 7.7.2009 on the ground that these are arbitrary, illegal, unjust and against the provisions of the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972 (for short, “the Rules”). 2. On 8.12.2008, the Government issued a notification, nominating the members of the Delimitation Board of different Municipalities. The Director, Local Government, Punjab, issued information that the meeting of Delimitation Board for preparing proposal of delimitation will be held on 7.7.2009. As per the petitioners, the information of this meeting was not given to all the Councillors. Even all the political parties were also not given any information regarding this, which is termed as in violation of the provisions of the Rules. Proposal of scheme of delimitation was prepared. As per the petitioners, the proposed scheme is in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules as none of the principles for delimitation were statedly followed in the scheme. The petitioners point out that objections to the delimitation were filed by almost all the political parties, including the ruling party, before the Deputy Commissioner. However, no decision was taken on the objections filed by the petitioners. When the petitioners approached this Court through the present petition, the election to the Municipal Committee was due in October 2010. When the petitioners learnt that the respondents were going ahead to publish the final order of delimitation in the Government gazette without deciding their objections, they approached this Court, alleging that this order would be arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 3. As is quite apparent from the nature of prayer made in the petition, the present approach was made by the petitioners when the final order of delimitation was yet to be passed. The petitioners, thus, apparently had approached this Court at a stage when the cause of action was yet to fully mature or accrue. 4. Notice of motion was issued and the writ petition is pending since the year 2010. 5. The reply was filed and thereafter the petitioners had also filed certain additional affidavit, controverting the population shown in some block, which represented Ward No.12. The writ petition was finally admitted for regular hearing and the result of election of the Committees was made subject to the final decision of the writ petition. 5. The reply was filed and thereafter the petitioners had also filed certain additional affidavit, controverting the population shown in some block, which represented Ward No.12. The writ petition was finally admitted for regular hearing and the result of election of the Committees was made subject to the final decision of the writ petition. Some application has now been filed and thereafter, the case was adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioners to place on record the order passed by a Division Bench, which had decided somewhat similar issue. Accordingly, the judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court, disposing of number of L.P.As leading one being L.P.A. No.1294 of 2010 (Inderjit Vs. State of Punjab), has been placed on record. 6. In the reply filed by the respondents, preliminary objection is raised on the strength of Section 13-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. As per this Section, the State Government is empowered to direct that general election of Members of Municipality or an election to fill casual vacancy shall be held by such date as may be specified. The Election Commission is then to take necessary steps as soon as a notification is issued under sub-section (1) of Section 13-A of the Punjab Municipal Act. It is on this basis submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and has become infructuous as the prayer only was to stay the final publication of delimitation of the wards whereas the notification had already been published about the delimitation of the wards. 7. Rule 6 of the Rules, which has been made the main plank of attack in the petition is reproduced in the reply. This rule talks of principles of delimitation of wards of municipalities. As per Rule 6(b), each municipality is to be divided into wards in such manner that the population of each ward as far as practicable is the same throughout the municipality with the variation upto ten percent above or below average population figure. On the basis of this Rule, it is contended that the quality of the wards regarding the purpose of delimitation is based on the population of the ward. As per the respondents, the petitioners are misreading this sub-section, whereas the word ‘population’ is being mixed with the votes in the wards. On the basis of this Rule, it is contended that the quality of the wards regarding the purpose of delimitation is based on the population of the ward. As per the respondents, the petitioners are misreading this sub-section, whereas the word ‘population’ is being mixed with the votes in the wards. This, according to the respondents, is the confusion being created by the petitioners and accordingly the data of ward-wise population of Dharamkot is reproduced in the petition to justify the delimitation of the wards as has been done. 8. A perusal of this data would show that total population in all the thirteen different wards varies from 1255 to 1540, which are the maximum and the minimum of the population of different wards. Thereafter, the break up of population of scheduled caste, backward class and general is given in respect of various wards, besides disclosing the reservation of wards for different categories. It is also stated that the population was ascertained locally through the staff deputed by the Director by going from door to door in the municipality, which is as per the provisions of the Rules. 9. The sole submission made by the petitioners is based on the approximate number of votes. On this basis, it is stated that in one ward votes are 382 whereas some other wards are having votes as many as 1210 or 1271. The principle of delimitation, as given in Rule 6 of the Rules, requires the each municipality is to be divided into wards in such a manner that population of each ward, as far as practicable, is the same. The respondents are justified in saying that the petitioners are confusing the word ‘population’ with the ‘votes’. The sole basis of submission of the petitioners is based on number of votes in various wards, which have been carved out whereas the rule requires delimitation of the wards as per the total population. The delimitation of the wards apparently is as per the rules and, thus, there no infirmity made out in the manner in which the delimitation of wards has been done. 10. The Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Inderjit (supra) has considered the wider question of the issue relating to reservation. The delimitation of the wards apparently is as per the rules and, thus, there no infirmity made out in the manner in which the delimitation of wards has been done. 10. The Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Inderjit (supra) has considered the wider question of the issue relating to reservation. The Court though was dealing with the requirement of rotating the wards for reservation but it has held that such rotation can not be with exactitude. It is further observed that the State has to be given play in knee joints to adjust according to the requirement keeping in view the population of the backward classes/scheduled caste votes. The Court accordingly did not find any illegality in the process of notification of reservation of the wards. Similar consideration would arise, when the issue also relates to delimitation of the wards, which is required to be done on the basis of the population in each ward. Rather, while directing delimitation of the wards, even more than play of knee joint may be available to the Government. The rule itself provides so when the words used are ‘as far as practicable’. The municipality is to be divided to ensure that the population as far as practicable is the same throughout. Even variation upto ten percent above or below the average population figure is available for play by the respondents. If the figures shown in the tabulated form are considered, it would show that the position of rule has been kept in view by the respondents in this regard. Otherwise also, the elections have already been held on the basis of delimitation as ordered and on this misplaced challenge, no interference otherwise may be called for. 11. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.