AZIZULLA KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following cases involving common and identical questions with regard to pre-election matters in relation to the Municipal Boards and Municipal council were heard together and the same are being decided by this common judgment. The details of the cases are as under: - S. No. No. of cases Title of cases Date of presentation Municipal Board / Council 1. SBCWP No. 3286/90 Azizulla Khan v. State and Ors. 31-7-90 Tonk 2. " No. 3428/90 Sabir Ahmed Qureshi v. State and Ors. 10-8-90 Jaipur 3. " No. 3424/90 Anil Shah v. State and Ors. 10-8-90 Jaipur 4. " No. 3473/90 Ram Narain v. State 16-8-90 Kota 5. " No. 3448/90 Abdul Zaleel v. State 16-8-90 Kota 6. " No. 3431/90 Kamal Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors. 13-8-90 Kota 7. " No. 3372/90 Nathu Lal v. State and Ors. 4-8-90 Chhabra (Kota) 8. " No. 3452/90 Dharamveer Agrawal v. State 16-8-90 Alwar 9. " No. 3432/90 Chandra Kant Sharma v. State 13-8-90 Bharatpur 10. " No. 3445/90 Dalu Ram v. State and Ors. 13-8-90 Pilani (Khunjhunu) 11. " No. 3449/90 Rafiq Mohd v. State and Ors. 16-8-90 Sunel (Distt. Jhalawar) 12. " No. 3441/90 Jagannath Sharma v. State and Ors. 16-8-90 Narayana (Distt. Jaipur) 13. " No. 3390/90 Rajendra Kumar v. State and Ors. 16-7-90 Gangapur City (Distt. Sawaimadhopur)@@@

(2.) When these writ petitions came up before the Court, the copies of the petitions were made available to Shri M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan and for other respondents who were functionaries of the Government. It was not considered necessary to issue notice to the respondents other than the State functionaries and the Municipal Boards/Councils who had been impleaded as respondents in certain cases and with the consent of both sides, the matters were finally heard. A detailed reply was filed on behalf of the respondents by Shri M.I. Khan in one of the cases, namely Azizullah v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3286/1990) and Shri M.I. Khan was also permitted to make submissions with reference to records to meet the objection pointed out on behalf of the petitioners and the grievances raised by them in the various petitions.

(3.) The draft proposals for the demarcation of wards had been issued and published in the month of April, 1990 and the same had been finalised in the month of June, 1990, for holding elections to various Municipal Boards/Councils in Rajasthan. It is a dismal fact that while preparing, issuing and publishing the draft proposals and finalisation of the same, due care and caution was not taken and in several cases the numbers of wards were changed arbitrarily; due regard was not given to the strength and density of voters in the councils/boards and wards therein. The grievances in the formation of wards, the change of numbers of wards in the name of delimitation of wards in an arbitrary manner even without inclusion or exclusion of areas therein, in certain cases numbering and reserving particular wards without any rational and lawful justification and the statement made before a Bench of this Court on 29/11/1989 on behalf of the Government in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4841/1988 Ram Saran Antyanuprasi v. State, have given rise to the mushroom growth of writ petitions before the issue of the notification for election so much so that the cases were filed even on 17/08/1990 while all these matters were being heard. The order dated 29/11/1989, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4841/88 is reproduced as under: -