Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2018
The Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds the constitutionality of Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2018 whereby the State Election Commission (SEC)was empowered to remove to remove municipal presidents and members on grounds of statutory disqualification under section 13 A of the Act.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said that Article 243V of the Constitution explicitly allowed state legislatures to create laws prescribing disqualifications for municipal members and designate an authority to decide such matters.
"Emphatically when a plenitude of legislative competence becomes bestowed upon the State Assemblies to, in terms of the (supra) extracted Constitutional mandate, thus make enactments wherebys the State Legislative Assemblies become clothed, with legislative competence, to create such an authority and in such manner, as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State, thus for making a decision over a subject concerning the elected member to a Municipality rather inviting or not inviting the statutory disqualification, as become mentioned in the clause (b) of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India.The bench highlighted that the amendment was was in harmony within the constitutional mandate", it added.
The petition was filed by Satish Kumar, who contested and won the election for the post of president in the Municipal Committee in 2022. Subsequently, several complaints were raised, alleging that he did not hold a valid matriculation certificate. The certificate he presented was issued by the 'Uttar Pradesh State Open Board,' which was not listed in the equivalency recognized by the relevant state board. As a result, the petitioner was subjected to disqualification under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1973.
The Court noted the argument raised by the petitioner's counsel that the SEC's reliance on an inquiry report prepared by a Deputy Commissioner without allowing him to participate violative of the principle of natural justice.
Rejecting the same, it opined that the show-cause notice had merged into the SEC's final decision, which was already under challenge in a separate plea. Any grievances about procedural lapses, the court said, would be addressed in that case.
"Resultantly, when the show cause notice merges into the final decision made by the competent authority, besides when the said decision is under challenge in CWP-8068-2023, as such, the argument (supra) warrants rejection, especially when the said argument would become dealt with by this Court when it proceeds to make a decision upon the writ petition," it added.
Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
Mr.ManishKumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate for MC Assandh/respondent.
Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.9.
Title: Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others