KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeal arises from an interim order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ("High Court") dtd. 31/1/2024. The order impugned originates in a writ petition alleging electoral malpractices by the presiding officer who conducted the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The High Court issued notice and listed the petition after three weeks, but it declined to stay the result of the election or grant any other interim relief. The appellant approached this Court assailing the Order and raised serious allegations about the sanctity of the election. With the course the proceedings have taken, this judgment will result in a final order on the writ petition before the High Court.

(3.) Sec. 38 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976 ("Act"), extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act 1994 (Act No 45 of 1994), provides that the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation shall, at its first meeting in each year, elect one of its elected members to be the Mayor of the Corporation. Sec. 60(a) of the Act provides that the meeting for the election of the Mayor shall be convened by the Divisional Commissioner, who shall nominate a councillor who is not a candidate for the election, to preside over the meeting. Similarly, Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1996 ("Regulations") provides that a meeting for the election of a Mayor shall be convened by the 'prescribed authority' who shall nominate a Councillor who is not a candidate to preside over the meeting. The Deputy Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh has been designated as Presiding Authority for this purpose by a Notification dtd. 4/10/1994.