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

2. In exercise of their powers under sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government of Punjab by notification dated August 2. 1976, directed inclusion of certain local areas. The local areas so included are : (1) Moranwali Panchayat Area, (2) GRam Market Area, (3) Guja Peer Basti, (4) Jakhal Road, (5) ITI Area, (6) BDO Block, (7) Tehsil Court Area and (8) Thei Area. The Gram Panchayat, Moranwali challenged the validity of the said notification by a writ petition filed before the High Court. A learned Single Judge granted an ad interim stay staying the operation of the impugned notification. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on October, 23, 1978. Thereupon, the Gram Panchayat preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and prayed for grant of stay of operation of the impugned notification. On December 19, 1978, a Division Bench passed the following order :Admitted, Stay dispossession ad interim. Notice regarding stayIt is common ground that eventually the stay was confirmed by the Division Bench and remained operative till April 1, 1980 when the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed3. In the meanwhile, the State Government decided to hold the elections of councillors of the Sunam Municipality on the basis of the old municipal limits, i. e. from the existing 15 wards, along with those of the 42 other municipalities, since proviso to sub-s. (3) of S. 13 of the Act, inserted by Punjab Act 18 of 1978 as amended by Punjab Act 2 of 1979 made it obligatory for the State Government to hold such elections before June 30, 1979. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification on April 6, 1979 under R. 3 of the Election Rules, 1952, specifying that the elections in the municipality shall be held on June 10, 1979. On June 23, 1979, i. e. after the whole process of election was over, the appellants, who seek to represent about 1000 voters from the local areas newly added to the municipal limits, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the election as null and void on the ground that there was no. delimitation of wards and no. fresh electoral rolls were prepared. The High Court, by its order dated July, 20, 1979, declined to set aside the elections held, but directed that the local areas be given representation under subsection (5) of S. 5 of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
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 :