Case: Atma Singh &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

stay order passed by the learned single Judge staying the operation of the notification issued under sub-section (3) of S. 5 was to put the said notification in abeyance, with the result that the local areas to which it related were not brought within the municipal limits. It is also an undisputed fact that the stay order passed by the learned single Judge was in force from August 2, 1978 to October 23, 1978. It is, however, urged that with the dismissal of the writ pettition by the learned single Judge on October, 23 1978, the impugned notification was brought into effect and, therefore, the State Government could not proceed with the election without delimitation of wards and preparation of fresh electoral rolls. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. 10. The case presents a rather disturbing feature. There were drastic changes brought about in S. 13 of the Act dealing with the term of councillors leading to the supersession of all municipalities in the State and casting an obligation on the State Government to hold fresh elections of councillors before June 30, 1976. In these circumstances, the Division Bench should have acted with greater circumspection. On the contrary, the Division Bench, on December 19, 1978 passed a stay order staying the dispossession of the Gram Panchayat although the Gram Panchayat had applied for staying the operation of the impugned notification. It is somewhat unfortunate that the stay order passed by the Division Bench was couched in rather ambiguous terms, but it had virtually the same effect as the one passed by the learned single Judge. It is difficult to comprehend the distinction between "stay of dispossession of the Gram Panchayat" and "stay of operation of the impugned notification". Apparently, the Division Bench, without applying its mind, passed an order staying dispossession of the Gram Panchayat, failing to realise that the effect of stay would dislocate the whole electoral process. When a local area sought to be brought within the limits of the municipality by the issue of a notification under sub-s. (3) of S. 5, was kept out of such limits by reason of the stay order passed by the Division Bench, there could obviously be no. delimitation of the municipality into new wards. 11. There was some doubt created about the purport and effect of the stay order passed by the Division Bench. This brought about an inevitable chain of events. After the Division Bench passed the order on December 19, 1978, the State Minister for Transport who represented the Sabha Areas in the State Legislative Assembly wrote to the Minister for Local Self-Government to postpone the elections scheduled to be held for the municipality. When the exact nature of the stay order was brought to the notice of the Minister, he agreed with the view of the Local Self-Government Department that the elections to the municipality could not be held without a delimitation of the municipal area. Eventually, the State Government had no. other alternative but to hold the election of the councillors on the basis of the existing limits of the municipality, i. e. from the existing 15 wards, due to the amendment of Proviso to sub-s. (3) of S. 13 of the Act by Punjab Act 2 of 1979 which made it obligatory for the State Government to hold the election before June 30, 1979. There can be no. doubt that the State Government acted with the best of intentions in deciding to hold the elections, The election so held on June 10, 1979 was a valid election and the councillors elected are entitled to run their full term of five years as provided by sub-s. (2) of S. 13. The contention that with the vacation of the stay by the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal on April 1, 1980, the whole election would be invalidated, must, therefore, fail. 12. We are distressed to find that due to the stay order passed by the Division Bench a large number of inhabitants of the local areas brought within the municipal limits under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act, who were otherwise eligible to be enrolled as voters, have thereby been deprived not only of their valuable right to vote at the election but also of the right to contest as a candidate for election as a councillor from any of the wards of the municipality or to the office of the President or the Vice-President. But there is little that can be done in the matter at this stage. 13. Driven to this situation brought about by the stay orders of the High Court, there is no. other alternative but to direct that the local areas included in the municipality under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 should be formed into a ward or wards and representation given to them under sub-s. (5) of S. 5 of the Act. The term of the councillors so elected from such local areas shall be conterminous with the term of the councillors already elected from the existing 15 wards. We are assured by learned counsel for the State that the State Government shall take immediate steps to comply with this direction. This shall be a purely interim arrangement necessitated by the somewhat unfortunate stay orders passed by the High-Court. The interim arrangement cannot obviously extend beyond the term of the present council. 14. We hope and trust that the State Government shall, in the meanwhile, take steps to constitute a Delimitation Board under R. 3 of the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972. After the delimitation of the municipality into new wards, the State Government shall proceed to re-fix the number of councillors of the re-constituted municipality under S. 11, prescribe the number of elected councillors afresh as required under cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Act and issue necessary directions for the preparation of fresh electoral rolls as required under Rr. 8 and 8A of the Election Rules, 1952. 15.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The whole purpose of delimitation of municipalities into wards is to ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation in the municipalities. When a municipality is re-constituted by the inclusion of any local area within the limits of a municipality under sub-section (3) of S. 5 or by the exclusion of any local area from the limits of a municipality under S. 7, i. e. when there is an alteration of the limits of the municipality, there must of necessity be a division of the reconstituted municipality into new wards without which the elections cannot be held. There can be no. disenfranchisement of a part of the electorate of a municipalityIt must follow logically and inevitably from this proposition that the constitution of wards dividing the whole of the municipal district is a since qua non of a valid election. If no. wards at all are constituted in the municipal district, the machinery of election cannot go through and equally the machinery of election cannot go through if wards are constituted in respect of a part of the municipal district and the other part is not divided into any ward or wards. In such a case there would be lists of voters for the wards which are constituted out of a part of the municipal district but there would be no. lists of voters so far as the other part of the municipal district is concerned and no. one from that part would be qualified to vote or to stand as a candidate for the election and no. councillors being elected by that part, there would be no. representation of that part on the municipality. Where such a situation arises, it is difficult to see how the Municipality can be said to be a Municipality for the whole of the municipal district within the meaning of S. 9We approve of the view taken by the Gujarat High Court8. Therecan be no. dispute with the principle that the State Government without re-constituting a municipality into new wards, cannot proceed to hold an election of councillors, when there is an extension of the municipal limits, but the difficulty is about the applicability of that principle to the facts of the present case. There is no. denying the fact that the effect of the stay order passed by the learned single Judge staying the operation of the notification issued under sub-section (3) of S. 5 was to put the said notification in abeyance, with the result that the local areas to which it related were not brought within the municipal limits. It is also an undisputed fact that the stay order passed by the learned single Judge was in force from August 2, 1978 to October 23, 1978. It is, however, urged that with the dismissal of the writ pettition by the learned single Judge on October, 23 1978, the impugned notification was brought into effect and, therefore, the State Government could not proceed with the election without delimitation of wards and preparation of fresh electoralrolls.We are afraid, the contention cannot be acceptedDriven to this situation brought about by the stay orders of the High Court, there is no. other alternative but to direct that the local areas included in the municipality under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 should be formed into a ward or wards and representation given to them under sub-s. (5) of S. 5 of the Act. The term of the councillors so elected from such local areas shall be conterminous with the term of the councillors already elected from the existing 15 wards. We are assured by learned counsel for the State that the State Government shall take immediate steps to comply with this direction. This shall be a purely interim arrangement necessitated by the somewhat unfortunate stay orders passed by the High-Court. The interim arrangement cannot obviously extend beyond the term of the present councilWe hope and trust that the State Government shall, in the meanwhile, take steps to constitute a Delimitation Board under R. 3 of the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972. After the delimitation of the municipality into new wards, the State Government shall proceed to re-fix the number of councillors of the re-constituted municipality under S. 11, prescribe the number of elected councillors afresh as required under cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Act and issue necessary directions for the preparation of fresh electoral rolls as required under Rr. 8 and 8A of the Election Rules, 1952The first of these submissions is unexceptionable, but it does not arises, and the second appears to us to be wholly devoid of substance7. Whenever there is a change in the limits of a municipality, the State Government cannot proceed to hold election of councillors without delimitation of the municipality into wards. The delimitation of wards, a delicate and important task, is entrusted to a Delimitation Board constituted under R. 3 of the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972 and under R. 4 thereof it is the duty of the Delimitation Board to effect an of a municipality, That rule reads thus :