SYED HABIB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30-4-1997 (Annexure P-2) of the respondent No. 1 State Government by which the respondents No. 3 to 6 have been nominated as councillors in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal under Section 9 (1) (b) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ).

(2.) SECTION 9 (1) (b) of the Act provides that Municipal Corporation shall consist of, amongst others, not more than six persons "having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration" nominated by the State Government. The respondents do not disclose how the respondents No. 3 to 6 have special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. The only plea which has been set up in the return is that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of nomination. In the absence of any details either from the State Government or the respondents No. 3 to 6 it must be held that they do not possess the special knowledge or experience in municipal administration as required by the statutory provision.

(3.) SO far as the question of locus-standi of the petitioner is concerned he is a voter and resident of Bhopal. He must be a tax or rate-payer. He is within his legitimate right to see that the composition of the Municipal Corporation is as per legal requirement. He has sufficient interest. He is the aggrieved or interested person. He has a genuine grievance. He can challenge the impugned order as he is likely to suffer legal injury. The narrow and rigid rule of locus standi has been buried long back. This is a case where the impugned order has been passed in violation of a statutory provision. It would cause public injury. If no one can maintain an action for redress of such public wrong or public injury, it would be disastrous for the rule of law, for it would be open to the State or a public authority to act with impunity beyond the scope of its power.