CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Campaign for People Participation, through its President, has prayed for declaring the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for brevity, ,,the 1994 Act) as ultra vires Part IXA and also violative of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further to issue a mandamus directing the respondent to take necessary steps immediately for directing election of the Municipality of New Delhi area.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition about the growth of local self governance and the concept of village republic with further reference is made to the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, formation and changes in the Delhi Municipal Committee from time to time and enactment of the 1994 Act, the 73rd and 74th amendments in the Constitution wherein Chapter IX has been introduced in respect of the Panchayats and Chapter IXA in respect of the Municipalities. IT is urged that these amendments have come into existence to spread democracy at the grass root level conferring more responsibility on the people. A reference has been made to the statement of objects and reasons for bringing the aforesaid amendments in the Constitution and further reference has been made to the Constitution Bench decision in Kishansingh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad andOrs., (2006) 8 SCC 352 to highlight the underlying constitutional significance of the said amendment.

(3.) THOUGH this Court had asked the Union of India to file the counter affidavit, yet Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, on 18.5.2011, had submitted that the controversy raised in this petition is covered by the decision rendered in Rama Aggarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 112 (2004) DLT 533 (DB). Be it noted, on that day, this Court had directed to file the counter affidavit and, thereafter, the matter was taken up on 17.8.2011. On 17.8.2011, as Mr.Chandhiok had forcefully submitted that the controversy having been covered, there is no necessity to file the counter affidavit, the matter was finally heard without the return.