R.PUSHPAM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, of certiorari to call for the records and quash, the order dated 29 -7 -1952 of respondent 1, the Stale of Madras. Petitioner 1 is the Secretary of the Progressive Women's Association, Aruppukottai; petitioner 2 is a Municipal Councillor of the Aruppukottai municipality. The elections to the said Council are now in progress. Under the programme of elections issued by respondent 2, Commissioner of the Municipality, the last date to file nominations is the 6th and 8th September 1952 and the date of this polling is fixed, on 6 -10 -1952. The Municipality is divided into 24 wards with 33 councillors; one reserved seat for women is allotted to ward No. 2 and another to ward No. 12. The said allotment was made by the order of the Government dated 29 -7 -1952. The petitioners seek to get that order quashed for the reasons 'inter alia' that it is vitiated by 'mala fides' on the part of the Government and also on the ground that the Government did not comply with the provisions of the District Municipalities Act in issuing the said order.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government did not comply with the provisions of Section 43, District Municipalities Act, may be taken up first. Section 43 reads:

(3.) RELYING upon the aforesaid correspondence, learned counsel for the petitioners argued generally that though the Government went through die formality of a consultation, they did not, in fact, consult the municipality. It was said that an authority consulting another should at least give reasons for the proposals so that the other may give its considered opinion in regard to the proposals made, for any proposal unaccompanied by such reasons could not afford any opportunity to the other to advise for or against the proposal It is true that the giving of reasons by the Government would enable the Municipality to scrutinise them and offer advice or counter proposals. But I cannot say that the procedure adopted is not 'consultation' in respect of the matters referred within the meaning of the section. The Government sent their proposals. Though the Government did not disclose their mind, by giving reasons nothing prevented the Municipality from making their suggestions in respect of the allotment of the reserved seats to Wards 5 and 12. They could give reasons, as they had given in this case_, why the proposal was not conducive in the interests of the women voters and how it could be suitably modified. The Government and the Municipality had a 'consultation' in respect of the allotment of reserved seats for women of wards 5 and 12. The Government wanted to allot to wards Nos 5 and 12; the Municipality, for reasons given, suggested they should be allotted to ward Nos. 5 and 7. It is therefore, manifest that the Government consulted the Municipality in respect of ward No. 12, and though the Municipality did not agree, they allotted the reserved seat to that ward. So far as ward No. 12 is concerned, the provisions of Section 43 have been complied with. But I find it very difficult to say the same in respect of the allotment of the reserved seat to ward No. 2