SUNIL KUMAR RANA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 19-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUNIL KUMAR RANA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATJL, JJ.] 
Municipalities: 
Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and amended Acts; Haryana Act 3 and 
C 15 of 1994; Section 13A: 
Disqualification for membershi~Ef!ective date-Held. legislature 
introduced disqualification for having more than two children would be 
effective after one year from first amendment Act 3194-By the 2nd Amendment 
15194, certain word substillited to avoid repugnancy with the main provision 
D -Thus the date of publication of first amendment Act 3194 is the relevant date 
for the purpose of disqualification. 
Respondent-State introduced disqualification for members of Municipal 
Council having more than two children vide Haryana Act No.3/94 in the 
E Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act notified in the Government Gaulle on 
5.4.94. The disqualification was made operati\'e one year after commencement 
of the amended Act. Legislature further amended the Act vide Haryana Act 
No.15/94 which substituted certain word to remove anomalies and absurdities 
in the main provision of the amended Act. 
F 
Appellant, a candidate for the Municipal Council, whose nomination 
paper was rejected on the ground of disqualification as per provision of law 
contained in Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act filed writ petition. In the 
meanwhile, elections were held. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
G 
It was contended for the appellant that the relevant date for the purpose 
H 
of determining disqualification was the date of publication of Haryana Act 
No.15/94 and not Act No.3/94 in the original gazette. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The main part of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13A 
568 
. 
S.K. RANA v. ST A TE 
569 
of the Haryana Municipal Act in unmistakable terms Introduced a A 
disqualif1Cation for being chosen as and for being a member of the Municipality 
of a person who has more than two living children. The ma1tdate of the 
legislature is clear and specific and purports to be in public Interest. At the 
same time, in order to protect, apparently cases where child could have by 
then conceived a reasonable period to relax from the rigour of the 
disqualification seem to have been thought of keeping in view perhaps the B 
normal gestation period, a proviso in the form of a deeming clause also appear 
to have been enacted enjoining at the same time that a person having more 
than two children on or after the expiry of one year of the commencement of 
this Act, shall not be deemed to be disqualified. (571-G, H; 572-A) 
1.2. The legislative intent thus to compute the period of one year from 
the "commencement of this Act" meaning thereby Haryana Act No.3of1994 
is explicit and clear. There is no rhyme or reason or justification in the claim 
of the appellant that the one year period has to be calculated from the date of 
coming into force of the Haryana Act No. IS of 1994, which merely substituted 
c 
the word "after" by the word "upto". The result of substitution was to read D 
the provision as amended by the word, ordered to be substituted. The 
modification of the provision, as carried out by the substitution ordered, when 
found to be needed and necessitated to implement effectively the legislative 
intention and to prevent ii social mischief against which the provision is 
directed, a purposive construction is a must and the only inevitable solution. E 
1572-B, C, DI 
2. The right to contest to an office of member of a municipal body is the 
creature of statute and not a constitutional or fundamental right. Viewed thus 
also the interpretation placed by the High Court on the provisions concerned 
is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable or unjust to call for interference. 
F 
(572-EI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8599 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. I 0.200 I of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C. W.P. No. 3141 of 2000. 
G 
Panna Lal Syngal and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
Adityha Kumar Choudhary, Neeraj Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, 
Ugra Shankar Pd., Praveen K. Rai and Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
:A 
'D. RAJU J. Special leave granted. 
The appellant filed his nomination on 7.3 .2000 for contesting the election 
to the Municipal Council, Kamal as a member from Ward No. 31. After 
overruling the objecti

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