Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 53 (AP)

K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-04-01

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2019
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. Sri K. Gopal Reddy, claiming to be a public spirited person resorted to this pro bono publico/Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in terms of the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and discriminatory violating Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "G.H.M.C. Act") and issue consequential directions to forthwith conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in terms of the Provisions of the G.H.M.C. Act. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Visakhapatnam City and engaged in contracts, besides involvement in political activities of Indian National Congress. He is one of the aspirants to contest in Municipal Corporation elections for the office of Mayor scheduled to be held in future, but on account of non performance of the obligations of the respondents, he could not contest in the elections. His specific contention is that the term of earlier elected Counselors of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was expired in the year 2012, but the authorities are not conducting elections for the last 5 years even though it is the obligation of the authorities to conduct elections periodically for various offices like Ward members, Mayor etc. Because of the inaction of the respondents in conducting elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the development of Visakhapatnam city is paralyzed at the State level, obviously, based on the directions issued by the leaders of the ruling political party. No law authorized the respondents to differ or withheld the elections indefinitely. Even in terms of G.H.M.C. Act, when the term of the elected council is expired, it is the duty of the respondents to conduct elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. As per Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act the term of the office of Members is 5 years. Similarly, as per Section 7 of the G.H.M.C. Act, every general election shall be held in the manner prescribed within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. As per Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act the term of the office of Members is 5 years. Similarly, as per Section 7 of the G.H.M.C. Act, every general election shall be held in the manner prescribed within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. The obligation to conduct election is a Constitutional obligation of the authorities and failure to conduct election amounts to disowning their constitutional obligation by the respondents though the election was held in 2007 for a period of five (5) years, which was expired in the year 2012. Obvious reason for not conducting elections is the inability of the respondents to conduct elections and such conduct is utter disregard of constitutional mandate under Article 343-U of Constitution of India. He also made certain allegations about the opinion expressed by a Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in a public meeting to conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in the year 2019 and other allegations about the political parties. On account of nonchalant attitude of the respondents herein, the elections were not conducted, which impair the right of the petitioner to participate in the election and requested to issue a direction referred supra. 3. Respondent No. 4 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was consisting 72 wards while so, in the year 2013 the 1st respondent had issued G.O.Ms. No. 375 dated 30.07.2013 for merger of Anakapalli Municipality along with 5 Grampanchayats namely K. Nagaraapalem, Chapalapada, J.V. Agraharam, Salapuvanipalem, and volluru along with Bheemunipatnam Municipality with 5 Grampanchayats, Kapalupada, Nidigattu, Thadi, Rajupalem and Koppaka as the respective municipalities and Grampanchayats have passed resolutions and in pursuance of the said resolutions the respondent No. 5 had recommended for merger of the Anakapalli Municipality along with 5 contiguous grampanchayats. Accordingly, Bheemunipatnam municipality along with 5 contiguous grampanchayats have been merged in the respondent corporation by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 375 dated 30.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 375 the 1st respondent had also issued G.O.Ms. Accordingly, Bheemunipatnam municipality along with 5 contiguous grampanchayats have been merged in the respondent corporation by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 375 dated 30.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 375 the 1st respondent had also issued G.O.Ms. No. 369 dated 30.07.2013 cancelling the notification declaring the 5 grampanchayats which are in contiguity of Bheemunipatnam municipality for merging into the respondent corporation as recommended by the commissioner and director of Municipal Administration and ever since the Anakapalli municipality and the 5 contiguous grampanchayats and the Bheemunipatnam municipality along with 5 contiguity grampanchayats were under the control and administration of the respondent corporation. 4. White the matter stood thus, one Mr. Yerusu Appalakonda and four others have filed W.P. No. 23942 of 2013 before this court challenging the action of the respondent No. 1 in denotifying the Grampanchayats namely Kapulupada, Nidigattu as grampanchayats so as to include them in the respondent corporation under G.O.Ms. No. 369 dated 30.07.2013 in exercise of the power under Rule 12(1) of A.P. Grampanchayats (declaration/denotification/constitution of villages) Rules 2007. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition Holding that the District Collector is not the competent authority to issue notice under Rule 12 of rules calling for objections in its order dated 24.09.2013. Subsequently another writ petition has been filed i.e., W.P. No. 31221 of 2013 in not conducting elections to the said 5 grampanchayats which were deleted from the respondent corporation and the said W.P. No. 31221 of 2013 was also disposed of directing the State Election Commission who is the respondent No. 2 therein to conduct the election to the said 5 grampanchayats forthwith by order dated 05.03.2014. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court in W.P. No. 31221 of 2013 the elections were conducted to the said 5 grampanchayats. 5. One Mr. Velagapudi Ramakrishna Rao who is the member of Legislative Assembly had filled W.P. No. 23078 of 2013 challenging the action of the respondent No. 1 in abolishing the Anakapalli and Bheemunipatnam municipalities under G.O.Ms. No. 373 and 374 dated 30.07.2013 and also denotifying 10 grampanchayats under G.O.Ms. No. 369 however the said writ petition is pending before this Court for adjudication. 6. No. 373 and 374 dated 30.07.2013 and also denotifying 10 grampanchayats under G.O.Ms. No. 369 however the said writ petition is pending before this Court for adjudication. 6. The Director of Municipal Administration had addressed a letter dated 30.08.2017 to the respondent corporation to prepare the delimitation proposal and in turn the respondent corporation had addressed a reply dated 12.09.2017 informing that the respondent No. 1 had issued G.O.Ms. No. 311 dated 16.08.2017 for fixing the strength of the elected members as 81 wards and it is also informed in the said letter that in view of the deletion of 5 grampanchayats which are contiguous to Bheemunipatnam municipality by virtue of the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P. No. 23942 of 2013 there is no contiguity with remaining areas of respondent corporation and Bheemunipatnam municipality and sought for clarification in this regard. 7. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the Director of Municipal Administration dated 06.10.2017 the 1st respondent had issued a memo No. 19722/G2/2015 dated 30.10.2017 requesting the Director of Municipal Administration of Andhra Pradesh to follow the rules and instructions issued on the issue of delimitation of wards pertaining to the respondent corporation. Subsequently the respondent corporation had addressed a letter dated 07.07.2018 to the respondent No. 1 stating that in view of deletion of 5 grampanchayats which are contiguous to Bheemunipatnam municipality by virtue of the orders passed by the Court in W.P. No. 23942 of 2013 dated 24.09.2013, there is no contiguity in the area of respondent corporation due to which the development activities are not taken up in full fledged manner and it is also stated that during the visit of the Chief Minister on 21.06.2018 it was instructed to expedite the matter for contiguity of grampanchayats and take necessary action and the same is pending for consideration before the respondent No. 1. 8. As per Rule 4 of (Delimitation of wards rules 1996) as framed under G.O.Ms. No. 570 dated 06.11.1996 the area of the Corporation shall be divided into Wards as notified by the Government under Rule 3, duly taking into account the natural boundaries Geographical features and contiguity of the area. Wherever natural boundaries could not be adopted survey numbers, T.S., numbers, important junctions or lanes shall be considered as far as possible. No. 570 dated 06.11.1996 the area of the Corporation shall be divided into Wards as notified by the Government under Rule 3, duly taking into account the natural boundaries Geographical features and contiguity of the area. Wherever natural boundaries could not be adopted survey numbers, T.S., numbers, important junctions or lanes shall be considered as far as possible. A bare reading of the above rule it is clear that the that the area of the respondent corporation shall be divided into wards duly taking into account the natural boundaries Geographical features and contiguity. In the instant case, in view of the deletion of 5 grampanchayats which are contiguous to Bheemunipatnam municipality the delimitation of wards cannot be prepared in view of lack of contiguity of the area as the merging of Bheemunipatnam municipality is continuing in the respondent corporation as on today, as there is no contiguity in the area of respondent corporation the respondent corporation had addressed a letter dated 07.07.2018 to the respondent No. 1 to take necessary action and the same is pending. It is submitted that in view of pending W.P. No. 23078 of 2018 challenging the merger of Bheemunipatnam municipality and in view of lack of contiguity, the respondent corporation could not take steps for delimitation of wards and addressed a letter dated 07.07.2018 the respondent corporation to take necessary action for preparation of delimitation of wards, but so far no action was taken. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the elections could not be conducted for the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, but not with any other intention and requested to dismiss the petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.V. Krishnaiah vehemently contended that keeping the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation without council for more than seven years is nothing but inefficiency of the respondents in conducting elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation; as there was no elected body for the Corporation, developmental activities are not evenly distributed within the District and certain areas were totally overlooked. Keeping the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation under the control of Municipal Commissioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, for such long time is against the purport and theory of local self governance, therefore, requested to issue direction to conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation immediately. 10. Keeping the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation under the control of Municipal Commissioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, for such long time is against the purport and theory of local self governance, therefore, requested to issue direction to conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation immediately. 10. Whereas, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 reiterated the contentions urged in the counter, whereas learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 expressed inability of the respondent No. 1 to hold election due to deletion of 5 Gram Panchayats from the Corporation area in view of the orders passed in W.P. No. 23942 of 2013 and no steps were taken till date to rectify the mistake and to conduct elections for the Panchayats. On the other hand, Sri Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, expressed its readiness to conduct elections whenever the Municipal Corporation expressed its readiness for proceeding further to conduct election and virtually reported no objection to conduct elections if the Municipal Corporation completes formalities for holding election. 11. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether a direction be issued against the respondents for conducting/holding elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by issuing a Writ of Mandamus in view of the circumstances narrated by the respondent No. 4? POINT: 12. It is undisputed fact that the period of council of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was expired in the year 2012, but the authorities admittedly did not hold any periodical election for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as required under the provisions of G.H.M.C. Act as well as Constitution of India. Respondents/authorities gave different explanation for failure of the Municipal Corporation to hold election, though, the State Election Commission readily agreed to hold election subject to compliance of other requirements by the Corporation and the State. As the Term of council was completed in the year 2012, the Election Commission has to start process of election within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. 13. As the Term of council was completed in the year 2012, the Election Commission has to start process of election within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. 13. Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act, which is applicable to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, prescribes the term of the office of elected members shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Corporation under clause (b) of Section 88 and the last day of their term of office is in the Act referred to as the day for retirement. 14. An ex-officio member shall hold office so long as he continues to be the member of the Legislative Assembly of the State or the Legislative Council of the State or the House of the people, as the case may be. Thus, the term of office of elected members of council is 5 years in any event, except ex-officio members referred in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. 15. Every general election requisite for the purpose of the Act shall be held in the manner prescribed, within three months before the day for retirement of the members as specified in Section 6 of the Act (Clause (1) of the Section 7 of the G.H.M.C. Act) 16. Similarly every casual vacancy in the office of an elected member of a Municipal Corporation shall be reported by the Commissioner to the State Election Commission within fifteen days from the date of occurrence of such vacancy and shall be filled within four months from that date (clause (2) of Section 7 of the G.H.M.C. Act) 17. Part IX-A introduced by 73rd Amendment to Constitution of India with effect from 01.06.1993 deals with the Municipalities. The main object of introducing this Chapter by 74th Amendment is that in many States the local bodies were not working properly and the timely elections were not being held and the nominated bodies were continuing for long periods. Elections had been irregular and many times unnecessarily delayed or postponed and the elected bodies had been superseded or suspended without adequate justification at the whims and fancies of the State authorities. The new provisions were added in the Constitution with a view to restore the rightful place in political governance for local bodies. Elections had been irregular and many times unnecessarily delayed or postponed and the elected bodies had been superseded or suspended without adequate justification at the whims and fancies of the State authorities. The new provisions were added in the Constitution with a view to restore the rightful place in political governance for local bodies. It was considered necessary to provide a constitutional status to such bodies and to ensure regular and fair conduct of elections. 18. According to Article 243(d) of the Constitution of India Municipality means the territorial area of a Municipality as notified by the Governor. 19. Article 243Q deals the constitution of Municipalities and the word 'municipality' covers a 'municipal corporation'. According to Article 243Q(1)(a) a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area. According to Article 243Q(1)(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area. According to Article 243Q(1)(c) A Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. The word 'Municipality' covers 'Municipal Corporation' as held by the Apex Court in "Cantonment Board, Secunderabad v. G. Venketram Reddy, AIR 1995 SC 1210 ". Article 243Q speaks of three institutions, namely, Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation. 20. According to Article 243U of Constitution of India, every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer: provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. 21. On analysis of Article 243U of Constitution of India, the duration of Municipality is 5 years from the date of its first meeting. It is incumbent upon the election commission and other authorities to conduct election in the manner prescribed within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified under Article 243(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 7 of G.H.M.C. Act. 22. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the Municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. 22. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the Municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. It is only when the Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting the Municipality for such period. 23. The State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. The Election Commission shall try to complete the election before the expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in the Act. Any revision of electoral rolls shall be carried out in time and if it cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, the election has to be conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral rolls. In other words, the Election Commission shall complete the election before the expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in the Act and not yield to situations that may be created by vested interests to postpone elections from being held within the stipulated time as held by the Apex Court in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352 ." 24. The Apex Court further held that the entire provision in the Constitution was inserted to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new Municipality for every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue, the provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution. In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies the State Election Commission enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India. 25. It is incumbent upon the Election Commission to start the election process as mandated under Section 7 of G.H.M.C. Act and Article 243U of Constitution of India. But in the present case, the respondent No. 2 - State Election Commission for one reason or the other did not take any steps till date though the period was expired about seven (7) years ago. One term of the council i.e. 5 years period was over and half of the 2nd term, approximately, is also over. In those circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not discharging their constitutional obligation to hold elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Even earlier also, a similar petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed by one of the public spirited persons in W.P. No. 31221 of 2013 and the Court passed an order directing to hold elections in view of the readiness expressed by State Election Commission, but for one reason or the other, the authorities - respondents herein did not start election process even after expiry of 7 years approximately and such attitude of the authorities is lamentable. 26. The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that due to orders of this Court in various writ petitions, 5 panchayats were deleted from Municipal Corporation as the G.Os. were issued in violation of Rule 12(9) of A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007. 26. The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that due to orders of this Court in various writ petitions, 5 panchayats were deleted from Municipal Corporation as the G.Os. were issued in violation of Rule 12(9) of A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007. Therefore, excuse pleaded by the Municipal Corporation for not holding elections by the respondents is not acceptable by applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad" (2006) 8 SCC 352 (referred supra), wherein it is made clear that the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. The same principle can be applied to the present facts of the case as the lame excuse is put forward by the Municipal Commissioner of Visakhapatnam, respondent No. 4. It is pertinent to note here that the period of council i.e. five (5) years was expired even before the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 31221 of 2013. More curiously, next term of five years was also expired. But the plea of impossibility to conduct elections to the Municipal Corporation due to multifarious reasons is not acceptable and the Apex Court in the special reference No. 01 of 2002 with regard to Legislative Assembly elections to the State of Gujarat, held as follows: "However, we are of the view that the employment of the words "on an expiration" occurring in Sections 14 and 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 respectively show that the Election Commission is required to take steps for holding election immediately on expiration of the term of the Assembly or its dissolution, although no period has been provided for. Yet, there is another indication in Sections 14 and 15 of the Representation of People Act that the election process can be set in motion by issuing of notification prior to expiry of six months of the normal term of the House of the People or Legislative Assembly. Yet, there is another indication in Sections 14 and 15 of the Representation of People Act that the election process can be set in motion by issuing of notification prior to expiry of six months of the normal term of the House of the People or Legislative Assembly. Clause (1) of Article 172 provides that while promulgation of emergency is in operation, Parliament by law can extend the duration of the Legislative Assembly not exceeding one year at a time and this period shall not, in any case, extend beyond a period of six months after promulgation has ceased to operate." "The aforesaid provisions do indicate that on the premature dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, the Election Commission is required to initiate immediate steps for holding election for constituting Legislative Assembly on the first occasion and in any case within six months from the date of premature dissolution of the Legislative Assembly." 27. While Concurring with the foregoing opinion, Pasayat, J. in paragraph 151, stated as follows: "The impossibility of holding the election is not a factor against the Election Commission. The maxim of law impotentia excusat legem is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex no cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform. "Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him." Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like an act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. Where the act of God prevents the compliance with the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Ed., at pp 1962-63 and Craies on Statue Law, 6th Edn., p. 268.) These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1974. Situations may be created by interested persons to see that elections do not take place and the caretaker Government continues in office. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Ed., at pp 1962-63 and Craies on Statue Law, 6th Edn., p. 268.) These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1974. Situations may be created by interested persons to see that elections do not take place and the caretaker Government continues in office. This certainly would be against the scheme of the Constitution and the basic structure to that extent shall be corroded." 28. The Apex Court in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad" (2006) 8 SCC 352 (referred supra) made it clear that the entire provision in the Constitution was inserted to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new Municipality for every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue, the provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution. In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India. In terms of Article 243K and Article 243ZA(1) the same powers are vested in the State Election Commission as the Election Commission of India under Article 324. The words in the former provisions are in pari materia with the latter provision. The words, 'superintendence, direction and control' as well as 'conduct of elections' have been held in the "broadest of terms" by the Apex Court in several decisions including in Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 ( AIR 2003 SC 87 ) and "Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 1978 (2) SCR 272 ". 29. The words, 'superintendence, direction and control' as well as 'conduct of elections' have been held in the "broadest of terms" by the Apex Court in several decisions including in Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 ( AIR 2003 SC 87 ) and "Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 1978 (2) SCR 272 ". 29. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 31639 of 2011 and batch had an occasion to deal with the issue similar to the present issue and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case referring to the object of self government as enunciated by the Apex Court in "K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) 7 SCC 202 ", wherein the Apex Court while dealing with reservations observed as follows: "56. The objectives of democratic decentralisation are not only to bring governance closer to the people, but also to make it more participatory, inclusive and accountable to the weaker sections of society." 30. By relying on the above principle, the Division Bench of this Court held that it is incumbent upon the State Election Commission and the concerned authorities to carry out the mandate of the Constitution and to see that new bodies are constituted in time and elections are conducted before the expiry of their duration of five years as specified in Article 243E of the Constitution. 31. Thus, from the law declared by various Courts, it is a constitutional obligation of the State Election Commission and local bodies i.e. local self government like Municipality and Panchayat to start process of election as permitted under Article 243 of Constitution of India. In the event of failure, it clear amounts to violation of constitutional obligation or duty and the provisions of G.H.M.C. Act. But obviously for different reasons, more particularly, on account of politics prevailing in the State, the State instrumentalities are delaying the election process for one reason or the other. Delay of months, at the best a year, is excusable, but seven (7) years is not excusable and such lethargic attitude of the State and its instrumentalities in not conducting elections to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation attending to the problems responding to letters addressed to the Government by the local bodies is may lead to administrative anarchy. 32. The question of municipal leadership is of great significance in urban governance in India. 32. The question of municipal leadership is of great significance in urban governance in India. There are various models of the position of chief executive of an urban local body, predominantly tilting towards the 'strong mayor' model either through 'presidentialisation' of the office or through a 'mayor-in-council' system. In India, it is the 'state appointed municipal commissioner' model that holds sway, sitting over a popularly elected body. Thus, among the many urban reforms needed to fix ailing city governance across India, the question of municipal leadership may not be one of pivotal significance. Issues such as functional devolution to urban local bodies, strengthening their fiscal health and their comprehensive empowerment as "vibrant democratic units of self-government" are indeed central to the governance of cities. 33. The role of 'chief executive' is important in the organization but it cannot be overstated. The chief executive leads the organization and drives it towards achieving organizational excellence. Internally, the chief executive provides strategic vision and direction, prescribes goals and objectives, inspires their team, and harnesses the abilities of employees to achieve success. Externally, the chief executive represents the organization, communicates with other entities and people, and establishes the organization's credentials or brand among stakeholders. But such chief executive officer cannot run the local government for years together and in the present case for a period of more than seven years since the State is not a mood to hold elections to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and its instrumentalities are unable to clear the hurdles, which are perennial in nature, despite letters addressed by the Corporation and the inaction on the part of the State and its instrumentalities is nothing but violating the constitutional mandate to hold elections to the Municipal Corporations for every period sacrificing democratic principles prescribed for development of Municipal Corporations and such attitude is depreciable. 34. Similar direction was also issued by this Court in W.P. No. 31221 of 2013, then the Officials of the Municipal Corporation woke up from slumber and started addressing letters, but not purpose was served and the attitude of the officials of the Corporation and the State would clearly show that the State is not interested in holding elections clearing all hurdles. But such clearance of hurdles can never be Ad infinitum. 35. But such clearance of hurdles can never be Ad infinitum. 35. As the local governments are being run by people's representatives of that area, such representatives of local area are the best persons to attend the needs of locals. The purpose of local governance is to decentralization of powers among wings of three tier system of governance based on democratic principles, strictly in terms of constitutional frame work. Delay in formation of new council of local government may deprive the locals to participate in governance of local bodies. Therefore, to keep up the aim of 74th amendment of Constitution of India, the official respondents shall conduct election to local bodies for every five years, strictly adhering to clause 3 of Article 243U of Constitution of India. But delay or postponement of quinquennial election for local government should be an exceptional circumstance not a regular feature. A free and fair election based on universal adult franchise is the basic; the regulatory procedures vis-à-vis. the repositories of functions and the distribution of legislative, executive and judicative roles in the total scheme, directed towards the holding of free elections, are the specifics. The superior authority is the election commission vide "Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi" 1978 (2) SCR 272 (referred supra). This free and fair election to local bodies is also based on democratic principle, since, democracy being the basic feature of our constitutional set up, there can be no two opinions that free and fair elections to our legislative bodies alone would guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy in the country. In order to ensure the purity of the election process it was thought by our Constitution-makers that the responsibility to hold free and fair elections in the country should be entrusted to an independent body which would be insulated from political and/or executive interference, (vide: "T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 611 "). In the present case, the independent body i.e. State Election Commission was unable to act in accordance with law to discharge the constitutional and statutory obligations to hold elections to Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation to uphold the object of constitutional 74th amendment. In the present case, the independent body i.e. State Election Commission was unable to act in accordance with law to discharge the constitutional and statutory obligations to hold elections to Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation to uphold the object of constitutional 74th amendment. Keeping in view of principles laid down in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad" (2006) 8 SCC 352 (referred supra), a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in "P.R. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka 2011 (2) Kar LJ 529" has categorically held that process of merger of urban local bodies and some villages situated around the Mahanagara palike to form the BBMP cannot be a reason to postpone holding of election and that merely because certain areas were to be merged to form BBMP was no excuse to contend that the elections could be delayed, this was because, it would violate Article 243U of Constitution and issued a direction to hold election. Persuaded by the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court and following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad" (2006) 8 SCC 352 (referred supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents acted arbitrarily and postpone the elections to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for a long period of 7 years contrary to the objective of 74th amendment and in utter violation of Section 7 of G.H.M.C. Act, Article 243U of Constitution of India. Since, the respondents failed to discharge their constitutional obligation, we find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to hold elections to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 36. In view of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Section 7 of G.H.M.C. Act, the respondents are directed to discharge their constitutional obligation to hold elections within six months from today, starting its process to clear hurdles like issue of notification for inclusion of panchayats (referred supra) at least by exercising power under Section 679-A of G.H.M.C. Act to merge the Gram Panchayats into Municipal Corporation, alternative by strictly adhering to the procedure pointed out in W.P. No. 31221 of 2013. In the event of failure to hold elections within the period, it will lead to serious consequences as there was no local leader to manage the Municipal Corporation for the benefit of public of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation area. On account of such attitude of the Officials of the State, it is difficult to attend various works, depending on the need of public within the area. 37. In view of our foregoing discussion, it is evident that the respondents miserably failed to discharge their constitutional obligations to hold election to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation based on lame excuse, which can be cleared within no time. But such excuse is not a ground for not holding elections in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad" (2006) 8 SCC 352 (referred supra). 38. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to conduct elections to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation within six (6) months from today. No costs. 39. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.