PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 13 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 24-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 706 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – s.5(3)
(iii)(a) and s.29A – Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations
(the Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved
Seats) Rules, 1994 – rr. 4 and 5 – Present two appeals arise out of
the judgments of the High Court in two separate Writ Petitions –
The first appeal was filed against the judgment of Gujarat High
Court in the writ petition filed challenging the vires of  s.5(3) (iii)(a)
and  s.29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,
1949 as well as Rule 4 and 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporations (the Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation
of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994 – High Court dismissed the said
petition noticing that earlier the vires of said sections and Rule 4
were upheld by the earlier Division Bench judgment of the High
Court – The second appeal was filed by State Election Commission
against the judgment of High Court in the writ petition challenging
the Clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Ordinance No.3 of 2015 promulgated
by the Governor of Gujarat by which s.7A of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, s.8A of Gujarat Municipalities
Act, 1963 and s.257 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 have
been substituted – The High Court held that the s.7A of the GPMC
Act, s.8A Gujarat Municipalities Act and s.257 of the Gujarat
Panchayats Act brought by Ordinance No.3 of 2015 was
unconstitutional and the action of the State Election Commission
for postponement of the election of all local bodies in the State was
illegal – Besides above mentioned two civil appeals, a writ petition
was also filed challenging the notifications issued by the Governor
of Gujarat in exercise of power u/s. 5(3)(iii)(a) of the Act, 1949
determining the number of Wards, seats including the seats reserved
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and
women in several Provincial Corporations – The two civil appeals
[2021] 13 S.C.R.89
89
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
and writ petition are tagged and heard together – Held: The
provisions of  s.5(3) (iii)(a) and s.29A of Act, 1949 and Rule 4 and
5 of  Rules, 1994 and Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 are not ultra vires to
Part IXA of the Constitution, the Division Bench  of the High Court
did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellants – Hence, the first civil appeal and Writ Petition are
dismissed – The civil appeal filed by the State Election Commission
is dismissed as having  become infructuous as the directions of the
Division Bench to initiate process of holding the election of the
local bodies was carried out and nothing remains to be decided in
this appeal.
Constitution of India – Art 243R and 243S – Whether Arts.
243R and Art. 243S of the Constitution of India contains any
limitation to the effect that there shall be only one member from one
ward – Held: The constitutional provisions of Art. 243R, which
provides for composition of Municipalities  and that of Art. 243ZA
does not give any indication as to whether from territorial
constituency, i.e., the Wards, whether only one member has to be
elected in the Municipality or it can be multiple member constituency
– There is no limitation in provision of Art. 243S, which limits the
State Legislature for requiring multi-member seats in a Ward – The
only requirement is that a member of the Municipality representing
a Ward shall be a member of the Ward Committee – Thus,
constitutional requirement or limitation engrafted in sub-Article(3)
of Art. 243S is that a member of the Municipality representing a
Ward shall be a member of the Ward Committee, it cannot be read
to mean  that it mandates that from one Ward more than one members
cannot be made representatives.
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation   Act, 1949 – ss.
5(3)(iii)(a), 29A –   Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (the
delimitation of wards and allocation of reserved seats) Rules, 1994
– rr. 4 and 5 –  Gujarat Municipal Corporation’s Ward Committees
Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction
of Business Rules, 2007 – r. 2(b) – Whether the provisions of
ss. 5(3)(iii)(a), 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation
Act, 1949 and Rules 4 and 5 of Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corpora

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.