ASHISH SINGH BHADORIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Law has reached its finest moment when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion". Since the Legislature has enacted the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as the "Rules"), petitioner, a citizen of Vidisha thought that said finest moment has reached and authorities are now bound to act in consonance and within the frame work of these provisions. The petitioner is aggrieved by notification dated 19.9.2014 (Annexure P/1) and prayed that it be set aside. A mandamus is prayed for to direct the respondents to undertake the exercise of determination of extent of wards afresh in accordance with the said rules. Lastly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to follow the procedure as prescribed in Section 5-A of the Act.

(2.) The relief prayed for shows that grievance of the petitioner is of two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the notification dated 19.9.2014 is not in consonance with section 29 of the Act and rules 3,6,7 and 8 of the Rules. Relief 7(iii) is prayed for by contending that as per Section 5-A of the Act, the ultimate decision is to be taken by the Governor himself whereas in the present case it is taken by the Collector.

(3.) Shri Pawan Dwivedi submits that determination of number and extent of wards needs to be done as per section 29 of the Act. Rules 3 to 8 prescribe methodology for the purpose of determination of number and extent of wards. It is submitted that the procedure prescribed in the said rules is not followed. No notice regarding the proposal if prepared under rule 6 is published by the Deputy Collector in the local newspaper in the prescribed form. Notices were not pasted in notice board of the office of Collector, office of Municipality and on other conspicuous places in the ward for the information in general public. No objections were invited and therefore, general public was deprived from their right of preferring objection.