2005 JTR(SC) 1324
2005 35 AIC 25 ; 2006 AIR(SC) 767 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 6380 ; 2005 9 JT 210 ; 2005 8 Scale 514 ; 2005 13 SCC 287 ; 2006 KHC 2019 ; 2005 4 KLT(Online) 1107 ; 2005 6 Supreme 134 ; 2005 7 Supreme 134
2005(7) Supreme 134
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Suresh Seth —Appellant
versus
Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9444 of 2003
Decided on 6-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocate, (AC), A.K. Chitale, Sr. Advocates, M. Mannan, Vikrant Singh, Niraj Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.K. Dubey, Sr. Advocate, S. Muralidhar, K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Amit Sharma, Chandramohan Anishetty, Rohit K. Singh and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocates.
Important point
Court cannot issue any such direction to State to make a law that a person may be debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices.
Act Referred :MADHYA PRADESH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT : ., S.441(f)
(A) The relevant statutory provision is the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, specifically Section 441-F, which provides the mechanism for filing a civil revision against an order of the Additional District Judge in election matters pertaining to municipal corporations. The present appeal invokes this section to challenge the dismissal of a civil revision filed against the order of the trial court that dismissed an election petition. The election pertained to the office of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Indore, and the core legal question revolves around the eligibility of a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly to hold the office of Mayor. The proceedings under this section are evaluated in the backdrop of the statutory term of the Mayor and the expeditious disposal of election petitions.
(B) Key legal principles include the limitation on judicial interference in legislative policy matters, as courts cannot direct legislatures to amend laws or enforce specific legislative changes. An election petition must be decided expeditiously, and if a substantial period has elapsed such that the relief sought becomes infructuous, the court will dismiss the petition. The court also clarified that it cannot issue mandamus to enforce legislative acts or to compel the legislature to enact laws prohibiting dual holding of offices.
Facts of the case:
An election for the office of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Indore was held in December 1999, and the result was declared in January 2000. An election petition was filed challenging the election of the returned candidate on the ground of disqualification for holding two offices. The petition was dismissed by the trial court, and a civil revision under Section 441-F of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the term of the Mayor had already expired, rendering the appeal infructuous. The court also observed that no directions could be issued regarding the delay in disposal as the record was incomplete, and it declined to issue directions for legislative reform or amendments.
Issues:
Whether the appeal challenging the dismissal of the civil revision is maintainable after the term of the office has expired. Whether the court can issue directions to expedite election petitions or to amend the law to debar simultaneous holding of legislative and municipal offices. Whether the court can direct the legislature to enact specific legislation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appeal is dismissed because the relief sought is no longer possible due to the expiration of the term of office, highlighting the principle that courts will not entertain infructuous proceedings. Furthermore, courts cannot interfere in legislative policy matters or issue directions to enact or amend laws.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The relevant statutory provision is the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, specifically Section 441-F, which provides the mechanism for filing a civil revision against an order of the Additional District Judge in election matters pertaining to municipal corporations. The present appeal invokes this section to challenge the dismissal of a civil revision filed against the order of the trial court that dismissed an election petition. The election pertained to the office of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Indore, and the core legal question revolves around the eligibility of a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly to hold the office of Mayor. The proceedings under this section are evaluated in the backdrop of the statutory term of the Mayor and the expeditious disposal of election petitions.
(B) Key legal principles include the limitation on judicial interference in legislative policy matters, as courts cannot direct legislatures to amend laws or enforce specific legislative changes. An election petition must be decided expeditiously, and if a substantial period has elapsed such that the relief sought becomes infructuous, the court will dismiss the petition. The court also clarified that it cannot issue mandamus to enforce legislative acts or to compel the legislature to enact laws prohibiting dual holding of offices.
Facts of the case:
An election for the office of Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Indore was held in December 1999, and the result was declared in January 2000. An election petition was filed challenging the election of the returned candidate on the ground of disqualification for holding two offices. The petition was dismissed by the trial court, and a civil revision under Section 441-F of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the term of the Mayor had already expired, rendering the appeal infructuous. The court also observed that no directions could be issued regarding the delay in disposal as the record was incomplete, and it declined to issue directions for legislative reform or amendments.
Issues:
Whether the appeal challenging the dismissal of the civil revision is maintainable after the term of the office has expired. Whether the court can issue directions to expedite election petitions or to amend the law to debar simultaneous holding of legislative and municipal offices. Whether the court can direct the legislature to enact specific legislation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appeal is dismissed because the relief sought is no longer possible due to the expiration of the term of office, highlighting the principle that courts will not entertain infructuous proceedings. Furthermore, courts cannot interfere in legislative policy matters or issue directions to enact or amend laws.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—This appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the Civil Revision filed by Bhanu Kumar Jain was dismissed.
2. The election for the Office of Mayor, Municipal Corporation of Indore, was notified on 25.11.1999. The election was held on 27.12.1999 and the result was declared on 3.1.2000 wherein Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya, respondent No. 3, was elected as Mayor. One Bhanu Kumar Jain filed an election petition challenging the election of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya as Mayor on several grounds and the principal ground taken was that he being a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly, was disqualified for holding the Office of Mayor of a corporation under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The election petition was dismissed by the XII Additional District Judge, Indore, by the judgment and order dated 11.4.2002. Bhanu Kumar Jain then filed a civil revision under Section 441-F of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in the High Court, which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.
3. The term of a Mayor under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 is five years and it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the term of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya has already come to an end. In these circumstances, no effective relief can be granted in the present appeal and the same has become infructuous by passage of time.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a direction be issued that an election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate should be decided expeditiously by the trial court and the revision petition preferred in the High Court should also be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The appellant has not filed copy of the order sheet of the trial court or of the High Court, which could give some indication as to who is responsible for the delay in the final disposal of the matter. Even the judgment of the trial court has not been filed along with the special leave petition. In absence of complete material having been placed on record, it will not be proper for us to issue any direction in this regard.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that this Court should issue directions for an appropriate amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely that of a member of the Legislative Assembly and also of Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the court. That apart this Court cannot issue any direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (para 51) it has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority. This view has been reiterated in State of J & K vs. A.R. Zakki 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 548. In A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271, it was held that no mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the legislature. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
****************