SURESH MAHAJAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 10-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
SURESH MAHAJAN
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2022)
MAY 10, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ]
Election Laws:
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956 – s. 10(1) – Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – ss.
12, 23 and 30 – Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 – s. 29
–Issue pertaining to non-conduct of elections in respect of large
number of local bodies – State not able to complete the triple test
formalities hence, reservation for OBC category could not be
provisioned by State Election Commission – Also, the State
conducting activities of delimitation or formation of wards, thus,
elections could not be held – Held: Conduct of elections to install
the newly elected body in the concerned local self-government
cannot brook delay, owing to the Constitutional mandate in Art.
243-E and 243-U including the provisions in the concerned State
Legislation – Delay may be permitted only when the dissolution of
a local body is necessitated before the expiry of the term of that
local body – Thus, all concerned are obliged to ensure that newly
elected body is installed in every local body before the expiry of the
5 years term of the outgoing elected body and in case of appointment
of an Administrator by the State, regime cannot continue beyond 6
months – This Constitutional mandate is inviolable – Amendment in
the concerned enactments authorizing the State Government to
determine the number and extent of wards to be constituted in the
local bodies, and delimitation or formation of wards cannot be a
tangible ground to not notify election programme within the time
frame specified – Delimitation is a continuous exercise and it ought
to commence well in advance – Completion of delimitation exercise
or triple test formality can wait, if not completed before the expiry
of five years term of the outgoing elected body – Therefore, State
Election Commission is directed to proceed to issue election
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 813
813
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
programme without any further delay as and when the elections
becomes due and without waiting for compliance of triple test –
Until triple test formality is completed, no reservation for other
backward classes can be provisioned – If the triple test formality is
not completed before the issue of election programme, the Seats,
except reserved for the SCs and STs, be notified as for the General
category – As and when the delimitation exercise or the triple test
formality is completed, elections conducted thereafter may have to
abide by such dispensation.
Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
6 SCC 73; Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation
of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 352 :
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 454; K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) &
Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 202 : [2010]
6 SCR 972 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 6 SCC 73
referred to
Para 5
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
Para 6
[2010] 6 SCR 972
referred to
Para 25
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
278 of 2022.
Under Artilce 32 of The Constitution of India
Gautam Awasthi, Ayush Choudhary, Devanshu Yadav, Sameer
Pandey, Varun Thakur, Brajesh Pandey, Anilender K. Pandey, Advs. for
the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, ASG,  Saurabh Mishra, D. S.
Parmar, Bharat Singh, AAGs, P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Harmeet Singh
Ruprah, Manish Yadav, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sharath
Nambiara, Vinayak Sharma, Siddharth Seth, Kartik Seth, M/s Chambers
of Kartik Seth, Nikhil Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails the validity of Section 10(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956, Sections 12, 23 and 30 of the
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
and Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 as being
arbitrary and usurping the powers and independence of the State Election
Commission.
2. By stated amendments, the State Government has been
authorized to issue notification from time to time determining the number
and  extent  of  wards  to  be  constituted  in  the  concerned local bodies.
More or less, similar situation obtains in the dispensation provided for in
the State of Maharashtra, after the amendment of relevant enactments
as noted in our order dated 04.05.2022 passed in SLP(C)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.