Campaign for People Participation v. UOI Adn Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J. dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7548/2010

CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION .... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil K. Aggarwal and Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates.

% CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

After the judgment was pronounced, Mr.Anil K.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, made an oral prayer for grant of certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the case does not involve substantial question of law of general importance. Hence, the oral prayer for grant of certificate stands rejected.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 sv

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 17th August, 2011 Date of decision : 12th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 7548/2010 CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil K. Aggarwal and Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Campaign for People Participation, through its President, has prayed for declaring the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for brevity, "the 1994 Act") as ultra vires Part IXA and also violative of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further to issue a mandamus directing the respondent to take necessary steps immediately for directing election of the Municipality of New Delhi area. 2. It is averred in the petition about the growth of local self governance and the concept of village republic with further reference is made to the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, formation and changes in the Delhi Municipal Committee from time to time and enactment of the 1994 Act, the 73rd and 74th amendments in the Constitution wherein Chapter IX has been introduced in respect of the Panchayats and Chapter IXA in respect of the Municipalities. It is urged that these amendments have come into existence to spread democracy at the grass root level conferring more responsibility on the people. A reference has been made to the statement of objects and reasons for bringing the aforesaid amendments in the Constitution and further reference has been made to the Constitution Bench decision in Kishansingh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad &Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 352 to highlight the underlying constitutional significance of the said amendment. 3. It is averred that the Constitution has recognized the importance of elected members of Panchayats and Municipalities. It is urged that emphasis laid on the responsibility of elected members of the municipal authorities has been highlighted by the Apex Court in the decisions of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 399. 4. It is further urged that in pursuance of the constitutional amendment, New Delhi Municipal Council Ordinance, 1994 was promulgated and, thereafter, the 1994 Act was enacted. It is contended that in abject contravention of the constitutional provision, the municipality constituted under the impugned Act does not provide for the proper structure of the municipality inasmuch as there are a number of ex officio members and not elected representatives. It is highlighted that in the absence of representation of the local people, the concept of urban local self governance which has been engrafted into the scheme of the Constitution of India after the introduction of Chapter IXA is flagrantly violated. The provisions in the Act are totally counter to the constitutional mandate and, therefore, they deserve to be declared ultra vires. 5. Though this Court had asked the Union of India to file the counter affidavit, yet Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, on 18.5.2011, had submitted that the controversy raised in this petition is covered by the decision rendered in Rama Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 112 (2004) DLT 533 (DB). Be it noted, on that day, this Court had directed to file the counter affidavit and, thereafter, the matter was taken up on 17.8.2011. On 17.8.2011, as Mr.Chandhiok had forcefully submitted that the controversy having been covered, there is no necessity to file the counter affidavit, the matter was finally heard without