v ^ ?t" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. % ^ / ^—/2004 Smt. Ajra Begum, W/o. Late Mohd. Shakeel, aged about 35 years, Municipal Councilor, Ward No.-6-Mohanpara, Akaltara, Tahsil and DistrictJanjgir - Champa, (C.G.). VERSUS \ '•' ^v 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Department ofUrban Administration and Development, Through its Principal Secretary Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ District Collector, Janjgir- Champa, [The Prescribed Authority Under Section 3 (26) ofthe Municipalities ActJ. Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur(C.G.) ChiefM^unicipal Officer, Municipal Council, Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Imran Khan, Vice President, Municipal Council Akaltara, (presently Holding Post ofPresident), 1 Municipal Council, Akaltara, !Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) PETITIONER XM-^ ^^ ^^^ x.^"w} ......<^^' ^oy...J" ^"^/' ^y ^' RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDERfS)/DIRECTIONrS) XI-HC-22 37T^T^T f<rli<=b 3TI^?T $ft^ict» ^f^a ......\.-. -T5? ^11'4H<4. ^^•y<l<i, (C<CTWI< 3TT^?T TR^ ..^:.JE?.:..1.€L^./..!2:^^ "'^ 200 HW^{ 5hHI<=h fcl^^ ^n^r '^ff^R -yf^^t 25.11.2004 Shri. Paakaj Shiivastava, Shri N, K. Agrawal, Dy. A^ 1 to 3. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Sajyay K. Agrawal, counsel for r^ Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, c| The petitioner has prefer^ 226/227 of the Constitution propriety aad correctness of tfa^ respondent No.3, whereby r^ respondent No.5 to look after tli^ Council, Akaltara. Brief facts^ leadirig to Srat Pushpa Sorii was elected Akaltara ia fhe year 1999, hol acccmnt of el^ction expenses ir| she vvas declared disqualified Chhattisgarh, as a rcsult of whi^j Council, Akaltara fell vacant No.5 has been noininated by of President, The chaUenge in this pe1 post of President, Miuiicipal woraan of OBC category aad <|ounsel for fhe petitioner. vocate General for rcspondents No. A|ivocate appears on behalf of Shri ^spondeut No. 4,. >iuisel for respondent No. 5< ^d this writ petitioa under Article |of India questioniag the legality, order-dated 19.2.2004 passed by a;spondeut No,3 has nonxiaated work of fhe President of Miuiicipal filmjg <^l^fo4lH HINdlE^fest i<tfa^i< ^sTpwan^f iQi of tih.is writ petition are that one ^s President 6f Municipal Council, l^vever, she could not fzuiush fhe accordaace witfa law, Therefore/ by fhe Election Commission of ?h fhe post ofPresident, Municipal agairist that post, respondent No.3 to look after fhe work abd rest)ondent |tion by ttie petiUoner is fhat the pouncil, Akaltara is reserved for sia^e fhe petitioner is the only elected - / XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f<Tli^ ^T^T $h*iIGn ^I^d ^' ^5? "4l<41d<4. -S^PT?, J»l<rti^y 3ff^T 'q^ra? HIHGII ^^^—^•""••••••'•^^•"'•^•'^^ 200 [cl^<y fI^T ^n^^i ^cti^t< 'yi^n ^rf^ - 2-- Miinicipalities tilie sh^ll womaa caadidate froin the OBC to beconie fhe President as per pf< 37 of fhe Chhattisgarh argunients advaaced by learaed cj( as per siib-section (1) ofSection ^ is required to forfhwith iafonn iip the vacaacy aad fhe Ele^ Coniiaission is required to cpnd| vacancy. Further argunient of l^ tihlat as per fhe proviso of sub-se<| the remaiaing period of that ten]|i tliaii 6 niontlis, such vacaacy Ifwe look iato siib-section envisages that Mds soon as the (\ Councillor elecf^edfrom ward becoi^ the eleciion of the president or ih^ declared void, the Staie Govemmi Election Comrmssion for filling i^ elecied shall holdihe officje of may be onlyforthe remaining section (2) ofSection 37 offhe Ac\ in the office ofpresident isfilledu and duties of the president sh( councillor as the Siaie Govemmi Provided ihat if the office of ihe <=hHid41'1 'qT^f'^fe:sl:'^^R ^F^Pa^i ^II^ category, therefore, she is entitled 'oviso to sub-section (2) ofSection Act, 1961. Whereas the ounsel for rcspondent No.5 is fhat \7 of fhe Act fh.e State Govemnient Election Coraiaission for fiUiag ;:tion Conimission, ia tum tlie ict fhe Election for fiUiag up the |anied counsel for respondent is |tion (1) of Section 37 of Uie Act if offhe Muxiicipal CouncU is less not be filled-ui, [1) ofSection 37 of fhe Act which ^fice of the President or a seat of nes vacxint or is declared vacant or Councillor, as the cnse may be, is ^nt shaU fort.hwiih znfonn the State the vacancy and ihe person so orcouncillor, as ihe case of ihe council" Whereas sub- envisages that " until the vacancy ^ider sub'section (1), all ihepozoers \Il be perfofmed by such elecied ^nt may nominaie in ihis behalf: ^resideni is reserved under Section z9P the^resident pe^od __ / XI-HC-22 sTi^T'^r f<rtt?b 3T(i?F St»^I<=t> <rfR<t h ~S:5EF ^|t^|<Ni4, ^Ttl^*!^ fal^tl^^ 3TI^T Ti5ra? N(N<^r ^^j^'"-----—••-•'— —^p^ 2Qg) fa*^ %^F ^^iIi^PT ^ — Therefore, the present c; under sub-section (1) of Sectio: cM^fa^fl^ Hi4-i<nfr'^ f!s^J<fat$l< '^^Tf^TOa^T' 29-B, the President sliall be no^jninated from ihe elected Councillors belongirzg io siich reserved cate^ory^ |ise falls under sub-section (2) not p. 37 offhe Act, as respondeut No.5 1 has not been elected zuider su^-section (1) but he has been asked to perform the diity of fhe Pre| section (2) of Section 37 zintil| provisions of sub-section (1). ^ident under fhe provisions of sub- |fhe vacao.cy is filled up as per the ITherefore, fhe State Govemnient is respondent No.5 is dischargiagj reqiiired to fiU up the vacaacy cjftlie President as per the provisions of szib-section (2). Leanied counsel for rc^pondent No.5 fartfier argued fhat the fiuictions as per the provisions ^, of Section 52 of the Act. But Rie arguineats advaaced by learaed counsel for respondent No.5 isj tlie matter, For dischargm.g fui|ictions as per Section 52 no order is required from fhe Govemnient, ia casual vacaacy fhe Vice-Pre^ident caanof dischai'ge th.e fiinction of the President Here, on acc|)unt of disquaUfication iacurred by fhe elected President vacaacv Itas faUen aiid fhat is a clear casual vacaacy which is rcquired to b^ filled-in^ by adoptmg fhe procediirc as envisaged in. sub-section (1) ffll-up fhat vacancy by nomins contrary to the record available io. As per sub-section (c) ofSection 52 of Section 37 of the Act and tiU then under sub-section(2) of Sectio3|i 37 fhe Goveninxent is reqiured to tiiig an. elected Councillor froin the^ saiae categoiy or caste for ^hich fhe post of fhe President is reserved for. Even if the reinajmuxg period of tlie CouncU is less /' ^H RAla! i XI-HC-22 STT^T'^T ^Jch ^TI^T ^^\^ ^d ^^ Sunita ^ •^Sl ^FI^R, •^NTI^, ^KtWy 3ff^?r 'q^? t<IMdlslbNi<h"""""""""""""""""""Wt 200 'f^^l' ^n^T'^TT^R'^^T <—4(— fhan. six months, fhen also fhajt szib-section (2) ofSection 37 of (1) says tliat tf fhe period is less) nqf be fiUed up, but tiiere is no (2) aad Section 52 has nc| circurastances of tiie ca6e, In fhe result, flie 19.2.2004 (Annexure P-2) is qui{ are directed to pass orders io. ac4 Certified copy as per Rules). vacaacy is to be fiUed iip as per ^Iie Act. The proviso to sub-section fhaa 6 aionfhs fh.eu fhat post will jszich proviso added to sub-section application hi tlie facts aad petit^o <^Ntd^^ ^M<^ ^ 1^SJ: it^I^K '^^rf;^F3?n^ir on is allowed, The order-dated tshed. The respondent No. 1 aad 3 ordaace with law. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^t^ ^Pa^