MUKESH RAM CHANDANI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very threshold, the common question raised in all these petitions is as to whether in terms of Article 243 ZG of the Constitution there is complete and absolute bar in considering any matter relating to Municipal election on any ground whatsoever after the publication of the an otification for holding Municipal election.The provisions contained in Article 243 ZG may be noticed which reads"243 ZG. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies,, made or purporting to be made Article 243 ZG shall not be called in question in any Court;(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.Considering the importance of the matter, when the petitions were taken up for hearing, several interveners, who were interested in the Municipal elections, filed petitions for intervention and they were allowed to intervene and were fully heard in the matter for number of days.

(2.) These ten petitioners in this main petition and others in the connected writ petitions have questioned the fairness of the action of the authorities concerned in publication of the notification dated 10/10/1995 and 13/10/1995 contained in Annexure-s 6 and 7 of the writ petition in pursuance of which they are proceeding to hold and conduct the election of the Municipal Corporations, which are in fact yet to come into existence in the manner provided by the 74th Amendment of the Constitution. In this main petition the petitioners belong to the districts of Kanpur, Bareilly, Lucknow, Gorakhpur, Ghaziabad, Agra, Varanasi, Aligarh, Moradabad and Meerut. In the other connected Writ Petitions they belong to Varanasi and Bhadohi.

(3.) The State Government as also the Election Commission have filed their counter-affidavits and the petitions have been filed by the interveners. On one hand the respondents are contending that after the publication of the Notification calling the Municipal election Article 243 ZG operates as a complete bar and, therefore, even this Court is not competent under Article 226 of the Constitution to enterrtain these petitions, and on the other hand, the petitioners, who are willing to participate in the ensuing election are crying hoarse and contending that the contemplated so called election is a complete farce and the action of respondents and its Authorities concerned has shaken the confidence of the people at large when the constitutional mandates as provided in Part IX A of the Constitution introduced by 74th Amendment has been thrown to winds. Arbtrariness in the action of the then Govenment is writ large on the face of the record itself, such being the situation, can this provision contained in Article 243 ZG treated as Great Wall of China setting up an absolute bar so impregnable that it can not be by-passed even by Article 226. This in a sense, is the key question that governs the fate of these petitions.