DHARMESH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is an elected Corporator of Ward No. II of Cuttack Municipal Corporation, has in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the final notification dated 18.2.2008 issued by the State Government in Housing and Urban Development Department, vide Annexure -11, in purported exercise of the power under Sub -section (1) of Section 60 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 ( shortly called 'the Act') read with Sub -rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation (Division of City into Wards, Reservation of Seats and Conduct of Election) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') by which the State Govt. has divided the area of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (hereinafter 'CMC') into 54 wards and made reservation of seats under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) THE Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid final notification in Annexure -11 on the ground that (i) the notification has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Act because there was no equitable distribution of population among various wards and compactness of the area forming each ward had not been maintained/taken into consideration in dividing the area of the Corporation into wards; (ii) the objections made by the Petitioner as well as certain citizens of the City to the proposal for division and formation of wards and reservation of seats as per the draft notification in Annexure -4 had not been taken into consideration; (iii) reservation of seats in 11 wards earmarked for women belonging to unreserved category has been done de hors Rule 4(3) of the Rules, more particularly the reservation made in respect of ward Nos. III, IV, V, VI and XXV; and (iv) the method of rotation had not been followed in respect of the aforesaid 11 wards.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, though Forms I and II were sent along with the letter in Annexure -3, the resolution of the Council was not sent to the Govt. and no information regarding reservation of any of i the wards to which the city was divided was furnished in Col.15 of Form II and the said column was kept blank. There after O.P. No. 2 published the draft notification dated 12.12.2007, Annexure -4, inviting objections to the proposed division and formation of wards as well as reservation of seats. This draft notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 60 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules. In the draft notification, Annexure -4, it was indicated that the CMC would be divided into 54 wards as Specified in Statement -I and reservation thereof had been proposed in Statement -II. When the matter stood thus, the Municipal Commissioner, O.P. No. 3 issued a letter dated 14.12.2007 to O.P. 2, vide Annexure -5, stating therein that the CMC in its meeting held on 27.11.2007 resolved to divide the existing 48 wards into 61 wards and to submit the resolution to the Govt., but prior to release of the said resolution, a proposal to divide the existing wards into 54 wards basing on the population of Enumeration Block of 2001 census and keeping in view the compactness of the area was submitted along with pro forma -I and II and map vide letter dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure -3). In aforesaid letter in Annexure -5 the Municipal Commissioner also stated that the revised proposal dividing the existing 48 wards into 61 wards was submitted in pro forma -I and II along with the map, as desired by the Mayor. Thus, according to the Petitioner, the second proposal was submitted by the Mayor.