SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs: "(i) A writ of quo -warranto may kindly be issued holding that the election/appointment of respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Mayor or Deputy Mayor, respectively is illegal and violative of the statutory provisions, and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against respondents 1 and 2 directing them to hold elections to the post of Mayor/Deputy Mayor in accordance with the statutory provisions and rules. (iii) That respondents 3 and 4 may kindly be restrained from holding the office of Mayor/Deputy Mayor."

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be an elected Municipal Councillor from the reserved Ward No. 11 of Shimla Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent was elected as a Councillor from Municipal Ward No. 4 and the 4th respondent as a Councillor from Municipal Ward No. 9 of the Municipal Corporation in question. Though information as to the party affiliation of the petitioner and the private respondents No. 3 and 4 has not been furnished, on being questioned on this aspect the learned Counsel for the petitioner would state that they also belong to and are affiliated to the political party to which the petitioner himself belong - Congress.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner in substance is that he was served with a notice under Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Reservation and Elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules), convening the meeting of the Councillors of the Corporation at 4.00 p.m. in the Town Hall of the Corporation to fill up the office of Mayor from the category of women and the office of the Deputy Mayor from the open candidates - open to all. There is no dispute that this notice as in the case of the other Councillors was served upon him on 1st December, 1999 at 6.00 p.m. According to the petitioner, he could not inspite of efforts made contact the 2nd respondent with reference to enquiries about the notice, yet he did participate in the meeting held pursuant to the notice referred to above, that he raised objections about the infirmities involved in the convening of the meeting and want of sufficient time but since his objections were not heeded to, he protested and made "walk -. out and that later he came to know that the 3rd respondent was unanimously elected as a Mayor and the 4th respondent was unanimously elected as Deputy Mayor, Shimla Municipal Corporation. The present writ petition has been filed in the Court on 20.12. 1999 for the reliefs noticed supra.