KAMALAKAR SINGH Vs. S.K. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or prohibition directing the respondents, the Secretary, Local Self -Government of the State of West Bengal, and the Commissioner, Presidency Division, to forbear from giving effect to the notification No. 1157M, published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 9th June, 1950, and for other reliefs. The application relates to the affairs of a municipality, called the Garulia Municipality situated in the 24 Parganas. There are two applicants, both of whom claim to be rate payers of the municipality and one of them appears to have held the position of Vice Chairman of the municipality before it was superseded. The notification, which is challenged, has been issued by the Commissioner of the Presidency Division under powers delegated to him by the Government under Section 544 of the Bengal Municipal Act (Apt XV of 1932) and the substantial effect of it is to divide the municipality into four wards with ten seats and to specify the boundaries of each ward.

(2.) THE facts are briefly as follows. The Garulia Municipality is situate in the 24 Parganas. Previous to January 1949, it functioned as a municipality, divided into 5 wards. On or about the 20th January 1949 the municipality was superseded and the S.D.O. Barrackpore was appointed as the Administrator. The administrator was asked to submit his proposals for the delimitation of the constituencies, the number and distribution of seats and similar matters, and he made his report, recommending the retention of the existing 5 wards, in which, according to him, there should be 11 seats. The Government at first agreed to the retention of the 5 wards but wanted 10 seats to which the administrator agreed. Subsequently, however, the Government considered the matter more closely and local inspections were held by the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate and finally the Government decided on 4 completely new wards with 10 seats, resulting in the publication of the notification which is challenged.

(3.) THE question of mala fides may be disposed off at once. I have no evidence before me as to which section of the public it was intended to help by the notification, nor how this is the inevitable consequence of dividing the municipality into four wards instead of five, or allowing 10 seats instead of 11. No facts or figures have been placed before me to prove that the industrial population will not have adequate representation. On the other hand, there is a considered memorandum of the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas (Being Ex. 'D' to the affidavit of Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee) giving facts and figures to show that the previous delimitation of the wards had been made to give the Muslims a weightage of 3:1 although the Hindu population of the municipality numbered 15410 as against 4740 Muslims. If the Government wishes to ensure a more reasonable and fair representation of all communities, it is no evidence of mala fide. As regards ousting of particular commissioners, I do not think that such a result is by itself undesirable. Knowing our municipalities as I do, I for myself would not be too terribly shocked to hear that they have ceased to be the guarded citadels of a particular group or coterie, particularly where a municipality degenerated into a condition when it had to be superseded. But I need not waste my time further on this point, because I have no evidence before me that the new delimitation was calculated to achieve such a result, or that such a result must inevitably follow the new delimitation.