A ASHOK Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :

(2.) The petitioner, voter in Ward No. 9, Palayamkottai who is also a tax payer has come to this Court praying to direct the respondents to conduct elections for all the Municipalities. It seems the petitioner has contested in the year 1986 Municipal Election and lost by a narrow margin. As he is interested in the public affairs, in particular Municipal affairs, of the Palayamkottai Municipality, he has come up to this Court with this writ petition styling as Public interest litigation. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the Municipal election took place for all the Municipalities is Tamil Nadu on 23-2-1989, that the tenure of office of the Chairman and Councillors was originally three years, that by Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1989 it has been extended to five years and that the period of office of the Chairman and Councillor expired on 3-3-1991. In such circumstances, a bills has been introduced by the State Government to provide for appointment of the Special Officers to Municipal Councils in the State of Tamil Nadu, that two Acts have been passed by the Government viz. Act 14 of 1991 and 15 of 1991. Act 14 of 1991 provides for appointment of Special Officers to Municipal Councils in the State of Tamil Nadu. Act 15 of 1991 provides for the appointment of Special Officers to Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils in the State of Tamil Nadu. The main purpose of the Act is the appointment of Special Officers for a period from 3-3-1991 to 10-4-1991. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that by the appointment of Special Officers, there will not be an elected body for the Municipal Administration in Tamil Nadu. It is also alleged that a nation like ours cannot be deprived of the right of having elected representatives. It is further stated that the Public will not have easy access to represent their grievance before a Special Officer, that administration of the Municipality by a Special Officer will lead to unnecessary waste of Municipal funds and that elected bodies will serve better the interest of public than the officials. It is further alleged in the affidavit that if Special Officers are appointed the possibility of the election in the near future will be ruled out, that the Government will postpone the election by giving some lame excuse, that the reasons for the appointment of Special Officers are also not sound, that the term of the office of Special Officer will expire on 10-4-1991, that as per Rule 10(1)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Council Conduct (Election of Chairman and Councillors) Rules 1978, it is necessary that there should be 35 days between the approval of the tentative and the actual date of approval. It is also alleged that the tenure of office of Special Officers is only 37 days and as such it is impossible to hold election after 3-3-1991 and before 10-4-1991. It is further alleged that this shows that the State Government has no intention to hold elections and the petitioner refers to Arts. 12 and 40 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also alleges that the move is for holding regular periodical elections. Though it is admitted in the affidavit that the State Government has no sufficient cause to postpone ordinary elections, it is alleged that there should be compelling reasons for such postponement of election. The petitioner refers to S. 8(4A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and apprehends that the same procedure would be adopted by the State Government for not conducting elections. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer stated supra.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. P. Pappin Fernando, the learned counsel for the petitioner is extenso. I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The short point that arises for consideration is whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to conduct elections for Chairman and Counsellors for all the Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu on a date fixed by this Court. The learned counsel relying upon the decision in Awas Samasya Niwaran Sanstha, Indore v. State, AIR 1983 MP 12 contends that a mandamus can issue to compel the State Government to take steps for re-constitution of the Counsil within a reasonable time. He also relies on a decision in Munnry Mian v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 NOC 58 (MP) wherein the Nagpur High Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, issued directions to the State Government to hold elections where no elections were held for 13 years. In Mukutdhri Sharma v. State, AIR 1978 MP 46 a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the re-constitution of Councils must be done within a reasonable time. In Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 53 a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued a mandamus to hold elections within ten months. In that case, the State had not held elections for a very long time, nearly for 24 years. Relying upon the decisions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus should be issued as prayed for. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.