Chattisgarh High Court
Suman Das Goswami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024
1 / 48
2024:CGHC:41754
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 20.09.2024
Order delivered on 22.10.2024
WPC No. 3693 of 2024
1. Kulbeer Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh Chhabra
Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Sonarpara
Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon C.G. Mo. No.
- 6260804408
---- Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban, Administration And Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District-
Raipur, C.G.
2. Directorate Urban, Administration And Development
Department, D-Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District - Raipur, C.G.
3. Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
4. Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its
Commissioner Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon District-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
5. Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon District-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
---- Respondents
2 / 48
WPC No. 3795 of 2024
1. Santosh Namdeo S/o Late Shri Khorbahra Namdeo Aged
About 58 Years R/o Sheetla Ward, Ward No. 19, Kawardha,
District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
2. Samat Ali Khan S/o Shri Gulab Shah Aged About 50 Years
R/o Sheetla Ward No. 19, Beechpara, Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Collector Kabirdham, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District
Kabirdham (CG)
4. Municipal Council Kawardha Through The Chief Municipal
Officer, Municipal Council Kawardha, Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
—- Respondents
WPC No. 3725 of 2024
1. Rajeshwar Sonkar S/o Balram Sonkar, Aged About 41 Years
President, Nagar Palika Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
2. Smt. Shanti Tandan W/o Shri Santram Tandan Aged About 53
Years Councilor, Ward No. 1, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District-
Durg ( C.G.).
3. Mahesh Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Shri Yuroop Singh Aged
About 46 Years Councilor, Ward No. 2, Nagar Palika,
Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
4. Thanesh Patel, S/o Late Shri Uday Ram Patel Aged About 38
Years Councilor, Ward No. 3, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District-
Durg ( C.G.).
5. Manharan Yadav S/o Shri Kejauram Yadav Aged About 41
3 / 48
Years Councilor, Ward No. 4, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District-
Durg ( C.G.).
6. Smt. Lata Khairwar, W/o Shri Dhanehwar Khairwar, Aged
About 34 Years Councilor, Ward No. 7, Nagar Palika,
Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
7. Pramod Singh Rajput S/o Shri Kundan Singh Rajput Aged
About 34 Years Councilor, Ward No. 8, Nagar Palika,
Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
8. Neetu Rawte W/o Shri Bodhi Rawte Aged About 50 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 11, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg
( C.G.).
9. Smt Lalita W/o Shri Kishore Sonkar Aged About 29 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 13, Nagar Palika, Kumhari, District- Durg
( C.G.).
10. Yujendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Khamhan Singh Sahu Aged
About 44 Years Councilor, Ward No. 16, Nagar Palika,
Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
11.Rakesh Kurre, S/o Shri Chandraprakash Kurre, Aged About
38 Years Councilor, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika, Kumhari,
District- Durg ( C.G.).
12. Smt Janki Dhruw, W/o Shri Tejpratap Dhruw, Aged About 41
Years Councilor, Ward No. 20, Nagar Palika, Kumhari,
District- Durg ( C.G.).
13. Pramod Chandrakar, S/o Shri Tikendra Kumar Chandrakar
Aged About 45 Years Councilor, Ward No. 21, Nagar Palika,
Kumhari, District- Durg ( C.G.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur ( C.G.).
2. Collector Durg, Distruct- Durg ( C.G.).
4 / 48
3. Chief Municipal Officer, Kumhari Municipal Council, District-
Durg ( C.G.).
4. Nayab Tahsildar, Tehsil Bhilai -3, District- Durg (C.G.).
—- Respondents
WPC No. 3754 of 2024
1. Suman Das Goswami S/o. Shri Tulsidas Goswami Aged
About 43 Years R/o. Ward No. 16, Sonipara Singhori,
Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Bemetara Main Road, Bemetara, District –
Bemetara (C.G.)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, Main Road,
Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.)
4. Municipal Council Bemetara Through The Chief Municipal
Officer, Municipal Council Bemetara, Bemetara, District –
Bemetara (C.G.)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 3768 of 2024
1. Tek Chand Karda S/o Late Shri Hotumal Karda Aged About
51 Years Resident Of Ward No. 4, Shankar Nagar, Padariya
Road, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
2. Collector, Bilaspur Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur
(CG)
5 / 48
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Takhatpur, Main Road,
Takhatpur, Dsitrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Municipal Council, Takhatpur Through The Chief Municipal
Officer, Municipal Council Takhatpur, Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
—- Respondents
WPC No. 4007 of 2024
1. Dharmendra Lodha, S/o. Late Shri Lalchandii Lodha, Aged
About 57 Years R/o. House No. 299, Station Road,
Sunderganj Ward, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District – Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director, Department Of Urban Administration And
Development, D-Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Collector, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.)
4. Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, Through Its Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.)
5. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 4063 of 2024
1. Shailesh Pandey, S/o. M.P. Pandey, Aged About 49 Years
R/o. Aasma Enclave, Near Jain International School, Sakri,
District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Vinod Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamjhool Sahu, Aged About 51
Years R/o. Ward No. 42, Quarter No. E-6, Sone Ganga
Colony, Chantidih, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
6 / 48
3. Arvind Shukla, S/o. Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Aged About 38
Years R/o. 25/666, Ward No. 25, Information Of Mahamaya
Lodge, Near Kumharpara, Karbala Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Motilal Tharawani, S/o. Amritlal Tharmani, Aged About 49
Years R/o. 247, Ward No. 38, Hemu Nagar, Near Sindhi
Dharamshala, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Mohammad Javed Jabbar, S/o. Abdul Jabbar, House No. 492,
Masjid Gali, Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District And Tehsil
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Directorate, Urban Administration And Development
Department, D- Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District – Raipur (C.G.)
3. Collector, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur
(C.G.)
6. The Secretary Of State Election Commission Naya Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Tehsil And District – Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 3871 of 2024
1. Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri J.P. Gupta Aged About 57
Years R/o. Kurumkela, Ward No. 12, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha,
District Jashpur (C.G.)
2. Vaijnath Prasad S/o Late Lakhan Sao Aged About 68 Years
R/o. Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)
3. Mukesh Kumar S/o. Sarju Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o.
7 / 48
Kurumkela, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District – Jashpur (C.G.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)
3. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Bagicha, District
Jashpur (C.G.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District Jashpur
(C.G.)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 4285 of 2024
1. Sunil Sharma S/o Late Banwarilal Sharma, Aged About 49
Years R/o Village Nagar Panchayat Kotba, Ward No. 06,
Tahsil – Pathalgaon, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon, District-
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kotba, Tahsil –
Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
—- Respondents
WPC No. 4032 of 2024
1. Aijaz Dhebar S/o Zikar Dhebar Aged About 47 Years R/o
Ward No. 46, Ocm Chowk In Front Of Hindu High School
Byron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
8 / 48
2. Akash Tiwari S/o Anup Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward
No. 35, Mig 35 Indrawati Colony, Indrawati Garden Ke Pass
Rajatab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Samir Akhtar S/o Nayeem Akhtar Aged About 49 Years R/o
Ward No. 62, H. No. 40/1025, Eidgaah Ke Saamne Sanjay
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Suresh Channawar S/o Damodar Rao Channawar Aged
About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Tulsi Bhawan, Indra Gandhi
Ward No. 20 Nahar Para, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
5. Maniram Sahu S/o Kejoo Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years
R/o Ward No. 24, Gali No. 2, Shiv Mandir Chowk Gokul
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
6. Mannu Yadav S/o Shrichand Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o
Ward No. 66, Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
7. Akashdeep Sharma S/o Ashwani Sharma Aged About 41
Years R/o Ward No. 56, Vriddashram Nagar Nigam Hospital
Campus Shyaam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
8. Jitendra Agrawal S/o Kandhilal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years
R/o Ward No. 43, Purani Basti, Baniyapara, Ashok Pahalwan
Gali, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
9. Nisha Yadav W/o Devendra Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o
Ward No. 58, Parshad Niwas, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Raipur,
District – Raipur (C.G.)
10. Prakash Jagat S/o Ratiram Jagat Aged About 39 Years R/o
Ward No. 23, Near Masjid Road, Koteshwar Nagar, Kota,
Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
11.Manju Sahu W/o Varendra Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o
Ward No. 19, Dr. A.P.J. Kalam, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
12. Shree Kumar Menon S/o S.K. Menon Aged About 56 Years
R/o Ward No. 20, Lig-148, Ward No. 10, Tilak Nagar Janta
9 / 48
Basti, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
13. Sheetal Kuldeep S/o Sundar Das Kuldeep Aged About 45
Years R/o Ward No. 49, Tahsilpara, Bhanupratappur, Uttar
Baster Kanker, (C.G.)
14. Beerendra Dewangan S/o Ranchhor Dewangan Aged About
52 Years R/o Ward No. 67, Amapara Road, Dhobipara
Bramhanpara, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
15. Sahdev S/o Surudhan Vibhar Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward
No. 50, Guruteg Bahadur Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur
(C.G.)
16. Neelam Jagat W/o Neelkanth Jagat Aged About 45 Years R/o
Ward No. 47, 21/1979, Nanak Kirana Gali, Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
17. Ritesh Tiwari S/o Bhagwan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 42
Years R/o Ward No. 37, Nagarnigam Colony Amapara,
Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
18. Uttam Sahu S/o Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o
Ward No. 67, Shriram Nagar, Changorabhata, Raipur, District
– Raipur (C.G.)
19. Dhanesh Banjare S/o Kamta Prasad Banjare Aged About 33
Years R/o Ward No. 51, House No. 114, Satnam Chowk,
Labhandi, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
20. Draupati Bai Patel W/o Hemant Patel Aged About 40 Years
R/o Ward No. 09, Bajar Chowk Laxmi Nagar, Mowa, Raipur,
District – Raipur (C.G.)
21. Ghanshyam Chhatri S/o Butu Chhatri Aged About 47 Years
R/o Ward No. 02, Lig 47/559, Ring Road No. 2 Near Gol
Chowk, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
22. Sandhya Thakur W/o Nanu Singh Thakur Aged About 52
Years R/o Ward No. 52, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
23. Uma Nirmalkar W/o Chandrahas Nirmalkar Aged About 55
Years R/o Ward No.54, Boriyakhurd, Raipur, District Raipur
10 / 48
(C.G.)
24. Anwar Hussan S/o Islam Hussan Aged About 42 Years R/o
Ward No. 36, Maudhapara, Subhash Nagar, Raipur, District –
Raipur (C.G.)
25. Purushottam Behera S/o Chandra Behera Aged About 28
Years R/o Ward No. 29, Behera Colony, Pandri, Raipur,
District – Raipur (C.G.)
26. Kamran Ansari S/o Md. Shamshuddin Ansari Aged About 38
Years R/o Ward No. 34, Raja Talab Near Gopal Store, Raipur,
District – Raipur (C.G.)
27. Amitesh Bhardwaj S/o Prem Singh Bhardwaj Aged About 39
Years R/o Ward No. 11, H-7 Rajiv Nagar Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
28. Anjani Vibhar W/o Radheshayam Vibhar Aged About 40 Years
R/o Ward No. 06, Near Sai Mandir Post Wrs Colony
Khamatarai 2, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
29. Dileshwari Sahu W/o Annu Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years
R/o Ward No. 17, Thakkar Bapa Ward 09 Parvati Nagar
Gudhiyarai, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
30. Sundar Lal Jogi S/o Shyam Lal Jogi Aged About 59 Years R/o
Ward No. 26, Thakkar Bapa Ward 09 Mini Mata Chowk,
Satnami Para, Gudhiyarai Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Raipur, District – Durg (C.G.)
3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Municipal
Corporation, District – Raipur (C.G.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondents
11 / 48
WPC No. 4037 of 2024
1. Kripa Ram Sahu S/o Shri Radhelal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Councilor
Ward No. 40, R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Nagar, Balco, Korba, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2. Tarun Rathore S/o Shri Tileshwar Prasad Rathore Aged About 34 Years
Councilor Ward No. 38, R/o Quarter No. 630-632, Sector 4, Type I I A,
Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3. Surti Kuldeep D/o Shri Janak Das Kuldeep Aged About 30 Years
Councilor Ward No. 57, R/o Quarter No. 665, Bhairotaal, Market Line,
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, (CG).
2. Collector Korba, District Korba (CG)
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba (CG)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 4069 of 2024
1. Boystobo @ Banti Nihal S/o Bhola Nihal Aged About 43 Years R/o Block
No. 36 B.S.U.P. Colony Telibandha Raipur, Tah And District- Raipur, C.G.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban,
Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department, D-Block,
4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. The Collector Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
4. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
5. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
— Respondents
WPC No. 4039 of 2024
1. Smt. Titli Gaurav Bindal W/o Gaurav Bindal Aged About 39 Years R/o
Thankhamariya Ward No. 4 Main Road House No. 36 District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh
2. Kanhaiya Nirmalkar S/o Late Aajurao Nirmalkar Aged About 40 Years R/o
12 / 48
Ward No.8 Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
3. Reena Loknath Sinha W/o Loknath Sinha Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward
No.6,Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban,
Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Directorate Urban, Administration And Development Department, D-Block
4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4. Municipal Council Thankhamariya Through Its Chief Municipal Officer
Thakhamariya District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
6. Prakash Yadav Tahsiidar Thankhamariya District Bemetara (CG)
—- Respondents
WPC No. 3843 of 2024
1. Sageer Khan S/o Late Shri Shahjad Khan, Aged About 45 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 06, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Mojampara,
Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Mohammad Yaseen S/o Shri Haji Ibrahim Bhai, Aged About 33 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 10, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Main Road
Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
3. Anil Usendi S/o Late Shri Ramratan Usendi Aged About 38 Years
Councilor, Ward No. 14, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Panchwati,
Keshkal, District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
4. Pankaj Nag S/o Shri Radheshyam Nag, Aged About 36 Years Councilor,
Ward No. 01, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, R/o Surdongar,, Keshkal,
District Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh)
… Petitioners
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
4. Chief Minicipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, District-Kondagaon
(C.G.)
… Respondents
13 / 48
For Petitioners : Mr.S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.
Manharanlal Sahu, Advocate; Mr. Amrito Das, Mr.
Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Ratnesh K Agrawal, Mr.
Harish Khutiya, Mr. CJK Rao, Mr. Manoj
Chouhan, Mr. Manas Vajpai, Ms. Sunita Jain, Mr.
Varun Sharma, Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocates
for respective petitioners.
For Respondents : Mr. Prafulla N Bharat, Advocate General with Mr.
Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General & Mr.
Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer; Mr. Ranbir Singh
Marhas with Mr. V. Pandey, Advocate; Mr.
Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Vivek Sharma,
Advocates for respective respondents.
Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
C A V Order
1. As the challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the
proceeding initiated for delimitation of municipal corporation/
nagar panchayats/municipalities as also final notification
issued of delimitation of some of the municipal/ panchayat/
municipalities areas, therefore, these writ petitions were heard
together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Petitioner in WPC No.3693/2024 is the Councilor of Ward
No.25-Sonarpara of Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon.
Pursuant to publication of preliminary Notification dated
15.7.2024 in regard to the proposal of delimitation of extent of
wards under Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon on the
ground that it is in violation of Section 10 (3) and 11 of the
Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the
Act of 1956’), Rule 6 (2) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal
14 / 48
Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 (henceforth ‘the
Rules of 1994’) but the same was not considered and final
notification has been issued.
3. Challenge to delimitation process in WPC Nos.3754/2024,
3768/2024, 3795/2024, 4037/2024 is on the ground that the
power of delimitation conferred upon the authorities cannot be
exercised randomly and frequently at the discretion of the
competent authority and it can only be exercise when there
arises a situation warranting of exercise of such power in
order to ensure homogeneity within the wards in a municipal
area. Delimitation of wards in Municipal Council according to
population was already done in the year 2014 and 2019,
therefore, there is no occasion for respondent authorities to
make proposal for delimitation of wards. Further, there is
neither any addition of territory within the municipal limits nor
is there any new population census, which is indicative of fact
that impugned process of delimitation of wards is deliberately
done to take political advantage by breaking the counting
blocks within the wards. Hence, the impugned preliminary
proposal published by respondent authorities is nothing but
colourable exercise of power.
4. Petitioners in WPC No.4063/2024 are aggrieved by
delimitation process for the reason that they have submitted
objections to preliminary notification issued under Rule 7 of
15 / 48
the Rules of 1994 within specified time raising specific
objection that delimitation process suffers from distribution of
population, reservation, geographically dis-balance and in
violation of relevant provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh
Municipalities Act 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) and the
Rules of 1994. However, without deciding the objections
raised by petitioner, respondent authorities have issued final
notification on 29.7.2024.
5. Petitioners in WPC No.3725/2024, 3871/2024, 4007/2024,
4032/2024, 4039/2024, 4069/2024, 4285/2024 have
challenged the delimitation process on the ground that
impugned notification is issued without considering that
delimitation process already carried in the year 2019 and
thereafter there is no change in scenario either by way of
boundaries or population of Municipal Corporation Kumhari.
The entire exercise is being carried without there being any
proposal from the Council or need of changing the extent of
wards assessed by the authorities in larger public interest or
any finding with regard to inconsistency of constitution of
wards made earlier in the year 2019. Extent of determination
of wards as determined vide notification issued in the year
2019 became final having not been challenged by anyone nor
the respondent authorities can challenge their own earlier
exercise to be in violation of law when there was no dispute
16 / 48
for the last five years. Entire delimitation process is in
violation of the provisions contained in Article 243 (ZG) of the
Constitution of India, the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994.
6. Petitioners in WPC Nos.3843/2024 have assailed the
impugned notification on the ground that there is no change in
existing area of municipal council and therefore, delimitation
process is contrary to provisions of Section 29 of the Act of
1961 and express provision under the Rules of 1994. By
changing the boundaries of wards, as intended in Notification,
counting blocks of particular category of voters within the
wards have been affected. the competent authority to initiate
process of delimitation and determination of wards under the
Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994 is the Collector, however,
the entire delimitation process is done by the authority below
the rank of Collector. Without considering the objections
submitted by petitioner, the impugned notification is issued.
7. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State in all writ petitions
raising almost common pleadings. It is pleaded that Section
10 of the Act of 1956 as also Section 29 of the Act of 1961
empowers the State Government to determine the number
and extent of wards. In exercise of powers conferred by
Section 355 of the Act of 1961, the Rules of 1994 have been
framed. Delimitation proceeding become essential because
there was gross anomaly in distribution of population and
17 / 48
compactness of wards in the delimitation process carried in
the year 2019. Delimitation process has been started in the
interest of able governance as also equitable distribution of
population (as per census of 2011) and ensuring the
compactness of various wards (which were not earlier
compact), to ensure fair process for determination of extent of
wards, the entire action has been conducted in accordance
with law, with full participation of general public and
stakeholders. Bare reading of the provisions contained under
the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1961 with respect to issue in
question clearly establish that it is the discretion of the State
Government to exercise its power to initiate proceeding for
determination of wards. It has been done following the
provisions under the law and constitutional mandate,
objections were called and the same were decided. Some
objections/suggestions were accepted and some were
rejected. After issuance of first notice dated 10.6.2024, other
notices were issued making certain amendments in earlier
notice issued for initiation of delimitation process by the State
Government, making it clear that basis for delimitation and
equitable distribution of population and compactness of wards
is solely on the basis of Census of 2011.
8. Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for petitioners in WPC No.3693/2024 etc., argued that
18 / 48
delimitation of municipality can only be done if municipal limits
are extended or there is abnormal variation in population,
change in number of wards upon constitution of new
municipality or voting figures of some of the wards of
Municipality. In case at hand, respondent authorities have
initiated delimitation process on the ground that there has
been increase in population after the Census of 2011. The
word ‘population’ is defined in Section 5 (43-a) of the
Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the
Act of 1956’) as also in Article 243 P (g) of the Constitution of
India, which means the population as ascertained at last
preceding census of which the relevant figures have been
published. Rule 6 (2) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities
(Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994, envisages that reformation of
ward of municipalities can be done on the basis of total
population of municipal area as per figure published of the
last census. Admittedly, no census is taken place after the
year 2011, hence, there is no data available with respondents
with respect to any increase in population after 2011. On the
basis of last census i.e. of the year 2011, the then State
Government had already undertaken the exercise of
delimitation in the year 2014 and 2019 and therefore, present
delimitation process, without a fresh census becomes an
arbitrary act. Merely because delimitation proceedings
19 / 48
initiated under Section 29 of the Act of 1961 in the year 2019
was upheld by the High Court, which has also attained finality,
the respondents cannot be permitted to claim that they are
also entitled to undertake the exercise of delimitation afresh
on the basis of Census of 2011. He further submits that mere
increase or decrease in the population of any ward by way of
inclusion or exclusion, for whatever reason, cannot be made
ground for invoking the provisions under Section 29 of the Act
of 1961. Revision of electoral roll is a continuous process and
it could not be the basis for exercising the powers for
determining number and extent of wards.
9. He next contended that respondents have proposed to initiate
process of delimitation inter alia on the basis of available data
of voters of previous election, as mentioned in Para-5 of the
Memo dated 14.6.2024 (Annexure R4/3), however, before
issuing such a direction, the State Government has not
inserted corresponding provision in the Statute and thus it
contravenes the provisions contained in the Act of 1961 and
the Rules made thereunder. As per Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of
1994, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to
determine the wards in such a way that population of each of
the wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout
the municipal area and the quotient so arrived must be the
average population of a ward in which a variation upto 15%
20 / 48
may be allowed. However, while making division of the
wards, the respondents herein have violated the provisions of
Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994 and made the wards of lesser
population from that of the quotient arrived at.
10. He further argued that as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994, it is
for the District Collector concerned to prepare the proposal for
delimitation of municipalities, however, the proposal of
present delimitation process has been prepared by the
Tahsildar and thus Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 has not been
followed in letter and spirit, which vitiates the entire
delimitation process. Further, objections to the proposed
delimitation process, as per draft notification issued, were
submitted but without deciding the same, final notification has
been issued by respondent and thereby the provision under
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994 has not been followed. Under
such circumstances, the entire delimitation process initiated
by the respondent authorities based on the Census, 2011 is
arbitrary, per se illegal and contrary to the provisions
contained in the Act of 1956, Rules of 1994 as also the
Constitution of India.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the
decision in cases of Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of
Punjab; AIR Online 2023 P & H 1357; Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat and
21 / 48
others; (2020) 6 SCC 548; Civil Appeal No.7930/2024
(Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & ors),
decided on 23.7.2024.
11. Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner in WPC
No.3693/2024, submits that he has challenged the
delimitation of Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon. Section
10 of the CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 deals with
delimitation of number and extent of wards and conduct of
election, which is almost similar to that of Section 29 of the
Act of 1961. Separate Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Municipal
Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 is legislated which
is also similar to that of the Rules of 1994. Adopting the
arguments advanced by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner in respective petitions, submitted that
for the purpose of undertaking the exercise of delimitation,
Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 provides that municipal area shall
be divided into wards in number equal to the number of wards
as determined by the State Government under Section 29 (1)
of the Act of 1961 and that the population of every municipal
area on dividing by the number of wards as determined for
that municipal area, the quotient so arrived shall be the
average population of a ward in which a variation upto 15%
may be allowed. He submits that in the year 2019, population
of Ward No.10, 15, 20 and 25 of Municipal Corporation
22 / 48
Rajnandgaon was 3575, 3044, 3100 and 3249 respectively
however, in the year 2024 while making division of wards,
respondents have increased the population of these Wards
from 3575, 3044, 3100 & 3249 and fixed at 4261, 4516, 4098,
4164, which is more than the permissible limit of variation
provided in Rule 3 (2). Thus, there is deviation of more than
15% in population while delimitation of wards, which is
contrary to Rule 3 (2) of Rules, which specifies that the
quotient so arrived shall be average population of a ward in
which variation upto 15% may be allowed.
12. He further contended that while delimitation of wards, it is the
obligation of respondents to constitute the wards in such a
way that every territorial ward, be geographically compact.
However, the composition of wards during current delimitation
has been made in such a manner which destroys
compactness of many wards of Municipal Corporation
Rajnandgaon. The boundaries of many wards have been
changed due to creation of new wards, deletion of existing
wards, shifting of certain areas of a ward to another ward,
main roads have been crossed, counting blocks have been
affected etc., which disturbed the geographical contiguity of a
ward. Thus, compactness of area forming each ward had not
been maintained/ taken into consideration during delimitation
process, whereas, Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994 provides
23 / 48
that while division of municipal area, the area of each ward,
so far as practicable, shall be compact.
13. He contended that delimitation of only those wards is done of
which Councillors belongs to party in opposition, which shows
that the entire delimitation exercise has been undertaken
under the guidance and supervision of the ruling party in
order to tilt scales in favour of ruling party in upcoming
municipal elections and the impugned notification is issued
only to further the electoral prospects of the party in power by
not adhering to the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the rules
thereunder framed in this regard.
14. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel representing
petitioner in WPC No.4063/2024 began his arguments,
canvassing that the objection with respect to maintainability of
writ petition in view of express bar imposed by Article 243ZA
(a) of the Constitution of India is not tenable for the reason
that the notification for holding of elections of municipalities
has yet not been issued and this writ petition is filed
immediately after publication of final notification of
delimitation. Interference by the Courts in election matters is
not permissible only when the electoral process commences
with the issuance of a notification under the Act of 1961 and
such a situation has not arisen in present case, hence writ
petition is maintainable. He next contended that notice inviting
24 / 48
objection in regard to proposed limits of the wards is signed
by the Collector concerned but the proposal to determine the
extent of wards is prepared by the Zone Commissioner/Sub-
Engineer, Municipal Corporation and not by the Collector, as
provided under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 and thereby the
procedure prescribed under Rule 6 has not been followed,
which vitiates the entire exercise of delimitation. Vide
representation dated 31.7.2024 petitioner submitted
representation before respondent No.1 to intimate as to what
decision is taken on the objection submitted by him with
respect to proposed delimitation of extents of wards but
respondents have not responded to the same, which show
that final notification is published without considering and
deciding objection of petitioner and as such, the final
notification is published without adhering to the provision of
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. For the rest, he adopted the
arguments advanced by other counsel in connected writ
petitions. On the question of maintainability of writ petition
challenging delimitation process, he placed reliance on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishorchandra
Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India and others, reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 1879.
15. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel representing petitioners in
WPC No.3754/2024, 3795/2024 and 3768/2024 has
25 / 48
advanced similar arguments as have been advanced by
learned counsel for respective petitioners in other connected
matters. In addition, he argued that the provision under the
statute is incorporated as a safeguard and not to act arbitrarily
and redetermine the extent of wards time and again at whims,
fancies and choice. Presence of power does not mean that it
can be exercised for ostensible reason, therefore, process of
delimitation of wards cannot be carried out in a routine
manner and it is necessary only when there is addition or
exclusion in territorial boundaries of any municipal council or
where there is a new population census published which
demonstrate unequal distribution of population. The entire
process of delimitation in question is initiated by respondents
on the ground that while making delimitation in the year 2019,
there were certain discrepancies which are required to be
cured although there is no whisper in this regard in document
Annexure P-2 which is heart and soul for initiation of process
delimitation.
16. He further submits that without there being any change in the
existing area of municipal councils involved in these writ
petitions, the respondents have decided to redetermine their
boundaries, which is contrary to express provision under the
Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994. Vide Annexure P-10 the
State Government issued instruction to all the Collectors to
26 / 48
ensure that delimitation process is carried in such a manner
that counting blocks should not be altered or bifurcated.
However, the proposed notification bifurcates various
counting blocks located in different wards of municipal council
Bemetara; petitioner submitted objection in this regard giving
details of counting blocks going to be affected from impugned
delimitation, but no action whatsoever has been taken. The
result of any election under a majority system depends in fact
not only the way people vote but on the way their votes are
distributed among the constituencies/wards and therefore, it is
impermissible for the State Government to redetermine the
wards in the manner as proposed, because the reason to
undertake the entire exercise of delimitation is to somehow
divide and distribute number of votes of those wards only
from where votes have not been cast in favour of ruling party.
Referring to the Notification issued by the State, it is argued
that in the order/circular dated 12.6.2024 there is specific
mention that there shall be no bifurcation of counting blocks,
however, in exercise of delimitation proceedings respondent
authorities have bifurcated the counting blocks which is in
contravention of the recent instructions issued by the State
Government.
17. He submits that proposed delimitation if allowed to take place,
then it would change the demography of the population of
27 / 48
reserved categories candidates because population count of
scheduled tribe and scheduled castes are dependent on the
counting blocks constituted in the year 2011. Further, the
effect of delimitation of wards would made the residents to
apply afresh for ration card, make necessary amendment in
their adhaar card, voter ID card etc. He submits that the
entire exercise of delimitation undertaken by respondent
authorities is a colourable exercise of power, absolutely
arbitrary and suffers from administrative vice. Calling of
objections and suggestion by respondent authorities is empty
formality, respondent authorities have already decided to
delimit the municipal wards in predetermined manner to gain
political mileage. He placed reliance on decision in cases of
Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851; State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Devilal, (1986) 1 SCC 657; Atma Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1981) 2 SCC 657.
18. Learned counsel representing petitioners in remaining writ
petitions adopted the arguments of learned counsel argued in
aforementioned writ petitions.
19. Learned Advocate General for the State would argue that it is
the prerogative of the State Government to decide as to when
and in what manner the municipal corporation/ municipalities /
nagar panchayat and wards in each municipal corporation/
28 / 48
municipality/panchayat is to be delimited and so long as the
process of delimitation is in conformity with the constitutional
provisions or without committing a breach thereof, the Courts
would not interfere with the same. He submits that need to
initiate the process of delimitation of municipal corporation/
municipalities /panchayats and their wards arises in view of
situation that there are lot of disparities in the wards of
municipal corporation/ municipalities/panchayats across the
State now as compared to the year 2019 and some municipal
corporation/ municipal/ panchayat wards are very large in
terms of voters while some are very small. There has been no
census since 2011, the only published figures available are
that of the Census of 2011 and accordingly, giving true import
to the provisions of the Rules of 1994, draft proposals for
delimitation of wards of panchayats etc. have been issued,
inviting objections/suggestions in regard to proposed limits of
wards, the objections, so received within the prescribed time
period were duly considered by the authority concerned, and
thereafter the proposals for delimitation of panchayat/
municipalities are submitted to the State Government. He
submits that process of delimitation is a legislative function,
there is no question of malafide in power exercised by the
State Government and the instructions issued by the State
Government to all the District Collectors from time to time and
29 / 48
broad guidelines, which were kept in mind while the proposals
were being sent after inviting objections and considering the
same. He submits that while delimitation process, it is
practically impossible to arrange wards in the manner so that
each one has an identical number of population or voters.
Arithmetical exactness or precision is hardly a workable
requirement of the Rules of 1994, which clearly says that
population shall be considered and distributed as far as
practicable. He submits that the State Government is having
legislative power for delimitation of wards in the interest of
general public at large. Since the action of delimitation of
municipal area is legislative function and not adjudicatory
process, the right of hearing or principles of natural justice are
not applicable. Even there is no provision either under the Act
of 1961 or the Rules of 1994 that personal hearing has to be
given. Thus, contention of petitioners that their objections
have not been decided as per their sweet will, would not
come to their rescue. Even the objections/suggestions were
called, on receipt thereof some of the suggestions were
considered positively and some were dismissed and merely
because the objections raised by petitioners were not decided
in their favour, does not give cause of action in their favour to
file writ petition.
He next contended that when a consequence is
30 / 48
provided in any Rule, the same is mandatory and if not, then it
is directory. As Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994 does not
provide any consequence, therefore, it is directory in nature
and as such, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that
non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) vitiates the entire process of
delimitation is irrelevant. He submits that the intent and object
of the Rules of 1994 is to regulate the extent of wards and
how the wards are to regulate is provided in Rule 3 to 8 of the
Rules of 1994. Section 10 of Act of 1956 provides for
determination of number and extent of wards. The principle
of harmonious construction is that the provisions of the
Statutes have to be read as a whole by giving harmonious
construction to all the provisions of law so that none of the
provision is rendered redundant. The essence of harmonious
construction is to give effect to both the provisions.
Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules of
1994 cannot be read in isolation, they have to be given
harmonious interpretation in the light of other provisions of the
Statute; otherwise it would render those provisions nugatory.
He next contended that none of petitioners in these writ
petition has been able to show as to what prejudice is going
to cause if the counting blocks are disturbed nor is there any
pleading to the effect that any fundamental right of any of
petitioners is infringed from the process of delimitation.
31 / 48
Furthermore, in most of the constituencies, delimitation has
not been done of the entire area. In some municipals,
delimitation of certain wards are done, in some no delimitation
is done, hence, it is not the position that bulk delimitation has
been throughout the State. Delimitation is done only of those
areas where it is necessary in view of the Census of 2011
taking into consideration compactness of wards.
He further submitted that arguments advanced by
learned counsel for petitioners based on Notification issued
by the State Government on 10.6.2024, has further been
amended. On 12.6.2024 further notice was issued
mentioning that due to upcoming municipal elections,
delimitation process has become inevitable. Under Clause-4 it
is clearly mentioned that main consideration for delimitation is
the population based on the Census of 2011. It further
mentions that if it has become necessary to delimit municipal
areas and wards, considering geographical location/status of
each ward and average population, delimitation be carried
out. From the amended letter/notification for delimitation it is
abundantly clear that basis for delimitation and equitable
distribution of population and compactness of wards is solely
on the basis of census of 2011. Further clarification is made
in letter dated 18.6.2024 as to how the population is to be
considered and clarified that population has to be strictly on
32 / 48
the basis of census of 2011 only. He submits that the law with
regard to determination of delimitation of Parliamentary
Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is very complex.
Requirement for delimitation is to issue notification, call
objections on proposal, to consider objections and to issue
final notification of delimitation. Under the Statute as also the
Constitution, there is no constitutional obligation to go on
issuing revised proposals depending upon every objection
and suggestion as may be received in response to the
proposals. Objections which are received have been
considered in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994.
Petitioners in many writ petitions of this batch have chosen to
use term for process of delimitation to be ‘politically
motivated”, without there being any specific pleading as to
how the State authorities have exercised the proceeding of
delimitation nor extracted any political benefit.
20. Reliance is placed on decision rendered in cases of State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Devilal, (1986) 1 SCC 657 Sundarjas
Kanyalal Bhatija and others vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra
and others, (1989) 3 SCC 396; State of UP & ors vs. Pradhan
Sangh Kshettra Samiti & ors, (1995) SCC (2) Suppl. 305;
State of Punjab vs. Tehal Singh and others, (2002) 2 SCC 7;
British Airways PLC. vs. Union of India & ors, (2002) 2 SCC
95; Balwant Singh and others vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and
33 / 48
others; (2003) 3 SCC 433; Association of Residents of Mhow
(ROM) and another vs. Delimitation Commission of India and
others, (2009) 5 SCC 404; Gramvasi Gram Khari Gram
Panchayat Dhamni v The Collector, Baloda Bazar, AIR 2015
CHHATTISGARH 7; Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of
Punjab; AIR Online 2023 P & H 1357.
21. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in
WPC No.3693/2024, adopted submissions advanced by
learned Advocate General for the State, and in addition he
submitted that challenge in this writ petition is to the Circular
dated 10.6.2024 as also public notice issued by respondent
No.3 and 4 inviting objections. However, respondent State
vide Circular dated 12.06.2024 instructed all the Collectors to
ensure that during delimitation process existing counting
blocks are not bifurcated in two or more wards under any
circumstance. Thereafter, vide Circular dated 14.6.2024
Circular dated 10.6.2024 was amended, the words ‘available
figures of voters of previous general elections’ were deleted
and it was directed that delimitation process be carried on the
basis of census of 2011. Vide Circular dated 18.6.2024,
another amendment was brought in Circular dated 10.6.2024
and the words ‘figure of voters of wards as far as practicable
be the same’ were substituted by “population of wards, as far
as practicable, be equivalent to census of 2011′. However,
34 / 48
the petitioner has not challenged the aforementioned circulars
and only challenged the Circular dated 10.6.2024 and as
such, writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that
the Prescribed Authority constituted a committee for
delimitation of wards, said Committee received various
objections in regard to delimitation of extent of wards, which
were considered and decided and thereafter only the proposal
of delimitation was sent by the Collector to the State
Government, which is pending consideration and final
notification has yet not been published and therefore, present
petition is premature.
22.Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the
documents available in record.
23.Perusal of documents placed along with petition as also reply
would show that main ground urged by the petitioners to
challenge the entire delimitation process is that based on
Census of 2011, earlier in the year 2014 and 2019
delimitation has taken place. Initially, the Town Administration
and Development Department, Government of CG, issued
letter to all the Collectors of the State of Chhattisgarh for
delimiting municipal areas. In the first notification there is
mention that consideration should be increase in population
of each ward. On 12.6.2024 another letter was issued
mentioning that at the time of delimitation, population to be
35 / 48
taken of the Census of 2011 and counting blocks should not
be distributed. Another letter was issued on 14.6.2024
clarifying letter dated 10.6.2024 and 12.6.2024. In this letter,
it is mentioned that for delimitation, the wards should be
created in the manner that the population of each ward, as far
as possible, remain one and same and there should be
compactness in the ward. It is further mentioned that the
procedure of issuing the notice calling objection and
publication of wards after delimitation in gazette notification.
Yet another letter dated 18.6.2024 was issued mentioning
that counting blocks are not to be divided as far as possible
and only in urgent situation division is possible and in case of
division, number of population of scheduled caste/scheduled
tribe be determined on the basis of house list of counting
block. On 18.6.2024 further clarification is issued deleting the
words ‘available figures of voters of previous general
elections’.
24.Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to extract
relevant provisions applicable to the facts of case. Section 10
of the Act of 1956 reads thus:-
“10.Determination of number and extent of
wards and conduct of elections.- (1) The State
Government shall from time to time, by notification
in the official gazette, determine the number and
extent of wards to be constituted in each municipal
area :
36 / 48
Provided that the total number of wards shall not
be more than seventy and not less than forty in
any municipal area.
(2) Only one Councillor shall be elected from each
ward.
(3) The formation of the wards shall be made in
such a way that the population of each of the
wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same
throughout the city and the area included in the
ward is compact.
(4) As soon as the formation of wards of a
municipal area is completed, the same shall be
reported by the State Government to the State
Election Commission.”
25.Section 29 of the Act of 1961 is reproduced herein below:-
“29.Determination of number and extent of wards
and conduct of elections.- (1) The State
Government shall from lime to lime, by notification in
the official gazette, determine the number and extent
of wards to be constituted for each
Municipality :Provided that the total number of wards
shall not be more than forty and not less than fifteen.(2) Only one Councillor shall be elected from each
ward.
(3) The formation of the wards shall be made in such
a way that the population of each of the wards shall,
so far as practicable, be the same throughout the
Municipal area and the area included in the ward is
compact.
(4) As soon as the formation of wards of a Municipality
is completed, the same shall be reported by the State
Government to the State Election Commission.”
26.Afore quoted two provisions under both the Statutes, deal
with one and same function of the State Government but one
37 / 48
for municipality and other for municipal corporation.
Procedure for determination of number and extent of wards is
prescribed under the Rules of 1994 i.e. Chhattisgarh
Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994. Rule 2 (c)
defines ‘municipal’ which means any municipal council or
nagar panchayat constituted under the Act. Rule 2 (e)
defines ‘population’ which means the population as
ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant
figures have been published. Rule 3 deals with division of
municipal area into wards. Unamended Rule 3 (2) reads as
under:-
“(2) population of every municipal area on dividing
by the number of wards as determined for that
municipal area, the quotient so arrived shall be the
average population of a ward in which a variation
upto 15 per cent may be allowed.”
27.Rule 3 (2) was amended in the year 2014, which is as
follows:-
“(2) The formation of wards, as far as practicable
shall be made in such a way that the population of
each of the wards be the same in all wards
throughout the city and the area included in the
wards be a compact area.”
28.Rule 3 (3) provides that area comprises within every ward
shall be compact. Rule 6 deals with preparation of proposal
to determine the extent of wards. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6
38 / 48
envisages that proposal to determine the extent of wards
shall be prepared by the Deputy Collector as nominated by
the Collector of the District in which the Municipality is
situated and any information as called for by such nominated
Deputy Collector from Chief Municipal Officer, for which the
Chief Municipal Officer shall be bound to make available,
Rule 6 (2) deals with relevant information which shall form
part of the proposals to be prepared by Deputy Collector and
Rule 8 talks of disposal of the objections/suggestions as
received and final publication.
29.Similar are the provisions under the Chhattisgarh Municipal
Corporation (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 also. In other
words, the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation
(Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994 are in pari materia with the
Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Extent of Wards) Rules, 1994.
30.It is not in dispute that proposals for limitation were submitted
based on the letters issued by the State Government. It is
also not in dispute that objections/suggestions were called,
many of petitioners herein submitted objections/suggestions
on the preliminary publication of delimitation of extent of
wards and as per submission of learned Advocate General for
the State, all the objections were considered, some of them,
which were found considerable, were accepted and some
were rejected.
39 / 48
31.Main contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respective petitioners is that delimitation has already been
done in the year 2014 and 2019, therefore, further
delimitation is not required. This argument is objected by
learned Advocate General for the State stating that even after
delimitation process carried out in the year 2014 based on
Census of 2011, earlier government has conducted
delimitation in the year 2019, which was not done properly as
there was no compactness of wards.
32.Part-IX of the Constitution of India deals with panchayats.
Definition of district’, ‘Gram Sabha’,’intermediate level’,
‘panchayat’, ‘panchayat area’, ‘population’ and ‘village’ is
given under Article 243. The word ‘population’ is defined in
Article 243 (f), which means ‘population’ as ascertained at the
last preceding census of which relevant figures have been
published.
33.Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India deals with
municipalities. Article 243-P is definition clause which
provides definition of ‘committee’, ‘district’, ‘metropolitan
area’, ‘municipal area’, ‘municipality’, ‘panchayat’ and
‘population’. Definition of ‘population’ given in sub-clause (g)
of Article 243Q means ‘population’ as ascertained at the last
preceding census of which relevant figures have been
published.
40 / 48
34.From perusal of afore quoted provisions under the
Constitution of India, the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1994, it
is apparent that delimitation process is a legislative function of
the State. It is not the case of petitioners in this batch of writ
petitions that preliminary notification, as envisaged under
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994, is not published. Their
submission is that objections were submitted but the same
were not considered in appropriate manner. In reply, the
pleadings and submission on behalf of the State Government
is that objections were duly considered, some were allowed
and some were rejected.
35.In case of Association of residents of Mhow (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with aforementioned facts of the
case, has observed that delimitation of Parliamentary
Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is very complex
and lengthy process, it shall be only after consideration of
objections and suggestions which may have been received
by the Commission before the specified date. The
Commission is not required to hold public meeting in each
and every constituency. The Commission is not under any
legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised
proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as
may be received by it in response to its proposals. As the
exercise of the delimitation is not with reference to any
41 / 48
particular constituency, the suggestions or objections, as the
case may be, in respect of one constituency may have their
impact at least on one or more of the adjoining
constituencies. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that as
per the rules, the proceedings have to be conducted,
preliminary notification is to be issued, objection is to be
called and it is to be decided. In the case at hand, this
procedure of calling objection by issuing preliminary
notification and deciding the same has been followed and
completed by the respondent authorities.
36.In case of Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with case of delimitation of
panchayats has observed thus:-
“44. It is for the Government to decide in what manner
the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each
panchayat area will be delimited. It is not for the court
to dictate the manner in which the same would be
done. So long as the panchayat areas and the
constituencies are delimited in conformity with the
constitutional provisions or without committing a breach
thereof, the courts cannot interfere with the same. We
may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court
in Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2. In
this case, the petitioner-mineowners, had among
others, challenged the method prescribed by the
legislature for recovering the cess under the Orissa
Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 on the
ground that it was unconstitutional. The majority of the
Bench held that the method is a matter of convenience
and, though relevant, has to be tested in the light of
other relevant circumstances. It is not permissible to
challenge the vires of a statute solely on the ground
that the method adopted for the recovery of the impost
42 / 48can and generally is adopted in levying a duty of
excise.
45. What is more objectionable in the approach of the
High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O
of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by
the courts in electoral matters including the questioning
of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made or purported to be made under
Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the
High Court has gone into the question of the validity of
the delimitation of the constituencies and also the
allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection,
refer to a decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v
Delimitation Commission3. In that case, a notification of
the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had
been a general constituency was notified as reserved
for the Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the
ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate
for Parliament from the said constituency which had
been taken away. This Court held that the impugned
notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made under Article 327 of the
Constitution, and that an examination of sections 8 and
43 / 489 of the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the
matters therein dealt with were not subject to the
scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good
reason for such a provision because if the orders made
under sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final,
the result would be that any voter, if he so wished,
could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the
delimitation of the constituencies from court to court.
Although an order under Section 8 or 9 of the
Delimitation Commission Act and published under
Section 10 [1] of that Act is not part of an Act of
Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 [4] of that
Act puts such an order in the same position as a law
made by the Parliament itself which could only be
made by it under Article 327. If we read Articles 243-C,
243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and Sections 2
(kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of Sections 8
and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious
that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor
of the constituencies in the said areas and the
allotments of seats to the constituencies could have
been challenged or the Court could have entertained
such challenge except on the ground that before the
delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing
44 / 48was given. Even this challenge could not have been
entertained after the notification for holding the
elections was issued. The High Court not only
entertained the challenge but has also gone into the
merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge
was made after the notification for the election was
issued on 31st August, 1994.”
37.So far as submission of Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for
petitioners in WPC No.3754/2024, with respect to division of
counting blocks based on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Devilal (supra), is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in that case considered the provision under Section 106
of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1962 to modify or
alter constituency of a block once delimited by a notification
issued thereunder after the process of election of members of
Janpad Panchyat has started. Section 106 of the MP
Panchayat Act, 1962 provides for division of blocks into
constituencies. Specific provision with respect to division of
blocks is envisaged under the MP Panchayat Act, 1962 and
further, sub-section (3) of Section 106 envisages that where
there are members belonging to scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes residing within the blocks, such number of
seats shall be reserved for the members of scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes on janganana panchayat. In the
45 / 48
aforesaid case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
alteration of limits of a block can be affected by the State
Government after following the procedure prescribed under
Section 370 of the Act. Hence, submission of learned
counsel for petitioner that alteration of blocks is not
permissible is not sustainable.
38.Argument raised by learned Advocate General is that to bring
compactness in the ward, exercise of delimitation process is
initiated and further in the letter issued by the State
Government, it is made clear that only in extreme urgent
situation division of blocks can be done and in case of
division under the population block, number of scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes shall be done based on the
house listing of janganna block. From the letter it is appearing
that the State Government has taken care that ordinarily
blocks are not to be bifurcated, only in exceptional cases has
permitted for division of counting blocks.
39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr.
S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High
Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of
Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of
said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that “in the light of
above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in
46 / 48
the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the
Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation
of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete
violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of
the Rules of 1972. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further
considered that principle is well settled that where any
statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a
particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in
accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
40.In the case at hand, the procedure prescribed under Section
29 of the Act of 1961, Section 10 of the Act of 1956 and the
Rules of 1994, has been followed. As discussed above,
exercise of delimitation of wards by the State Government is
a legislative function, and therefore, the proceedings of
delimitation can be open to judicial review only where the
procedure prescribed for the same is not followed. If the State
Government found that delimitation of wards is necessary for
maintaining compactness of the wards and it is in conformity
with the Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994, the proceedings
cannot be put to scrutiny of the Court.
41. Provisions under the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1961
envisage that the Government shall time to time by
Notification in the official gazette can determine the number
and extent of wards, to regulate the proceedings of the
47 / 48
delimitation of number and extent of wards the Rules of 1994
have been incorporated in exercise of the powers under
Section 433 of the Act of 1956 and Section 355 of the Act of
1961. Bare perusal of the provision would show that the
State Government has all the powers to delimit the wards
time to time, subject to the parameters as envisaged under
relevant provisions and following the procedure prescribed
under law.
42.So far as submission of Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for
respective petitioners that the State Government is infact
attempting to gerrymandering is concerned, no specific
pleading is made to show as to how the exercise of
delimitation initiated by the State Government is for unfair
advantage. Merely pleading one line or making submission
taking the observation made by the Court in some judgment
will not suffice. Petitioner (s), who raises ground levelling
factual allegation has to put specific material facts in support
of such pleadings and submissions. In absence thereof, such
grounds have no legs to stand. Hence, the argument raised
by Mr. Amrito Das and others is not having any foundation to
stand and therefore falls.
43.So far as submission of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate that State
cannot supplement or supplant reason for delimitation is
concerned, the first letter/circular issued in this regard is
48 / 48
dated 10.6.2024, thereafter on 12.6.2024, 14.6.2024 and
lastly on 18.6.2024. The clarificatory letters have been issued
in very short intervals clarifying the position. It is not the case
that the State Government is making an attempt to justify their
act by issuing other letters after completion of the entire
proceeding or completion of all major procedure for the same
after challenge to action is made. Hence, I do not find any
merit in the said submission of learned counsel for petitioner.
44.After giving minute consideration to the grounds raised,
submissions made by the learned counsel for respective
parties, the provisions applicable and the law laid down
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, this Court does not find
any good reason to interfere with the delimitation proceedings
and Notifications.
45.For the foregoing discussions, the above writ petitions
challenging the proceedings and notifications of delimitation
of different municipalities and municipal corporations fail and
are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR Sd/-
ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Digitally signed
by SYED Judge
ROSHAN ZAMIR
ALI
Date: 2024.10.22
18:53:22 +0530
roshan/-