'Can't Direct State To Enact A Law': MP HC Dismisses PIL For Fixing Ceiling Limit On Expenses Incurred By Candidates In Local Body Elections

Dismissing the petition, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal held that a writ for mandamus cannot lie to direct the state to enact a law.

The Petitioner had contended that there was no expenditure limit for candidates in Panchayat elections, corollary to which, many of them indulged in exorbitant expenditure to woo and lure voters. Such practices, it had submitted, vitiates the elections by jeopardizing its free and fair conduct, which ultimately prevents a level playing field for all the candidates. It had categorically submitted, and asserted that there was no such provision available, either under the Act of 1993 or Panchayat Election Rules 1995 framed thereunder, fixing the expenditure limit for the candidates contesting elections to a post under the Act of 1993.

The Petitioner had brought the attention of the Court to its decision in a writ petition that was also filed by the Petitioner, wherein it had sought for an identical prayer, but with respect to fixing limit of expenses of candidates in Municipal elections. The Court, while deciding the said petition, had directed the State Government to consider and decide on the representation of the Petitioner. The direction had eventually led to incorporation of ceiling limit to the expenditure to be incurred by the candidates contesting the elections to the post of Councillors in Municipal Corporation and Municipalities in the State of Madhya Pradesh, with the State Government suitably amending the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.

The Court, however, in the present case decided not to interfere with the matter, noting that it cannot direct the state to enact a law. It observed-

"The prayer sought for is a writ of mandamus to incorporate certain provisions in the law, namely, Section 14-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Section 32-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Irrespective of the submission being made, it is needless to state that a writ for mandamus cannot lie to direct the State to enact a law. That is precisely what the writ petitioners want. Hence, we are of the view that such a petition for mandamus would not lie."

With the aforesaid observations, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch and Anr. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 53