ASHISH SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After we had elaborately heard the matter, and had reserved judgment on 03.07.2019, we were informed by Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Government, after Court hours on the same day i.e. 03.07.2019, that an interim order was passed by the Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.18595 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019, in an appeal preferred against the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MCC No.1644 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019, arising out of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3142 of 2018 dated 22.10.2018. Since the Supreme Court had directed that the matter be listed before it on 24.07.2019, we refrained from pronouncing judgment in the light of the observations, made in the order of the Supreme Court, that no order by the High Court will come in the way of the State to complete the formalities under Section 32 of the 1959 Act.

(2.) Misc. Application with Supplementary Affidavit (IA No.9309 of 2019) was filed, on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3715 of 2018, on 16.07.2019 requesting us to take on record the supplementary affidavit along with its annexures. In the affidavit filed therein, it is stated that the petitioner had filed IA No.97905 of 2019 before the Supreme Court seeking clarification of the order dated 2.07.2019; considering the urgency of the matter, the counsel for the petitioner had mentioned before the Supreme Court on 09.07.2019; the Supreme Court, considering the urgency, had allowed the prayer for an early hearing of IA No.97905 of 2019, and had directed that the matter be listed on 12.07.2019; after considering the nature of the dispute, with regards exclusion of two areas i.e. Rampur and Padli Gujjar, the Supreme Court had arrived at the conclusion that no clarification was required in respect of the order dated 02.07.2019, and had rejected the application for clarification; the Supreme Court, however, made it clear that rejection of the clarification application would not come in the way of the petitioner (applicant therein) to pursue other remedies as may be permissible in law; the interim order dated 02.01.2019, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3715 of 2018 and batch, is still in operation; under the shelter of the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.07.2019, the District Magistrate, Haridwar had issued a tentative notification dated 08.07.2019 for reservation of forty wards of the Municipal Corporation, Roorkee excluding the two areas i.e. Rampur and Padli Gujjar; other areas were also included therein, which are mentioned in the notification dated 06.12.2018; the action of the State Government, and the District Magistrate, Haridwar, is in violation of the interim order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3715 of 2018 and batch dated 02.01.2019; in the light of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, in its order dated 12.07.2019, the Writ Petition be disposed of early; and the petitioner has reasons to believe that the State Government would proceed with the election process, excluding the two areas i.e. Rampur and Padli Gujjar, in violation of Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3715 of 2018, would submit that the Supreme court had passed the aforesaid order in an appeal preferred by the State Government against the order passed by this Court in MCC No.1644 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019, arising out of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3142 of 2018 dated 22.10.2018; by the interim order passed in W.P. No. 3715 of 2018 dated 02.01.2019 and batch it is only the effect and operation of the notification dated 06.12.2018 which was stayed; the notification dated 06.12.2018 relates only to the exclusion of Padli Gujjar and Rampur villages from the limits of Roorkee Municipal Corporation; in its interim order dated 02.01.2019, this Court made it clear that it was not staying the election of the Roorkee Municipal Corporation; the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 02.07.2019 would not come in the way of this Court deciding, in these Writ Petitions, the challenge to the validity of the notification dated 06.12.2018 to the extent Rampur and Padli Gujjar villages were excluded; it was open to the State Election Commission to conduct elections to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation inclusive of these two villages; since the State Government is now conducting the exercise of providing reservation in the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, excluding these two villages, the said exercise is in violation of the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3715 of 2018 dated 02.01.2019; the State Government should, in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.07.2019 and the interim order passed by this Court dated 02.01.2019, conclude the exercise of delimitation of the entire Roorkee Municipal Corporation including Rampur and Padli Gujjar villages; they are taking advantage of the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.07.2019, and are now conducting the exercise of delimitation of the Roorkee Municipal Corportion excluding these two villages, though the order passed by the Supreme Court on 02.07.2019 did not specifically permit them to do so; and this Court should consider deciding the Writ Petitions early, since the State Government is seeking to take advantage of the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.07.2019, and to hold elections contrary to the interim order dated 02.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3715 f 2018 and batch.