Anugrah NaraIn Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
election - election of local self government not held within specified time - article 226 of constitution of india --government praying for extension of time - reason - change of government -when person appointed as chief minister - with the condition of seeking vote of confidence within time specified by governor - normal functioning of government cannot be possible - first priority being seeking of vote of confidence in the state assembly- time for holding election extended. - - but in spite of the best efforts it was not possible to hold election within the time fixed by the court.order1. sarvasri anugrah narain sigh, anil kumar yadav and nisar ahmad filed writ petition no. 38469 of 1994 for appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the state of u.p. to hold election of local self government (urban). after considering the earlier decisions of this court and the facts and circumstances of the case, this court directed the government of u.p. to hold the election for constituting nagar panchayats, municipalities and municipal corporations before july 31, 1995. as the government could not hold election within the above period, it has moved an application supported by an affidavit in the third week of july, 1995, praying for extension of time to hold the election by november, 1995.2. we have heard sri rakesh dwivedi, additional advocate general for government of u.p. and sri ravi kiran jain, learned. senior counsel for the petitioners, who filed the writ petition.3. sri ravi kiran jain has opposed theextension of time on three grounds, namely, (i) it was incumbent on the government to hold election within the time specified by the court and replacement of the old government by the new government is no ground for not complying with the order of this court; (ii) unless it is physically impossible to hold election within the time specified by the court, there is no justification to extend the time; and (iii) the two notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 changing the rules for reservation for backward classes have been issued in order to delay the election and the application for extension of time is part of the same scheme and is, therefore, not a bona fide application. sri rakesh dwivedi, learned advocate general for government of u.p. has disputed the above contentions.4. the government of u.p. in support of this application has placed on record, in the form of affidavit, the following facts and circumstances.5. after the judgment of this court was delivered on 25-5-1995, directing the government to hold the election by 31-7-1995,coalition government of bahujan samajwadi party and samajwadi party, led by sri mulayam singh yadav was removed from power on account of withdrawal of support by bahujan samajwadi party and susri mayawati was appointed as the new chief minister of this state and she was administered oath by the governor on 3-6-1995 with the condition that she will seek the vote of confidence as chief minister in the u. p. legislative assembly on 20-6-1995. on 20-6-1995 the new chief minister secured the vote of confidence in the state assembly and on 26-6-1995 she expanded her cabinet. immediately thereafter some vital changes were made in the administration. as there were lot of protests and objections to the method of reservation for backward classes, the government changed the rules by notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995. election commission of uttar pradesh wrote a letter to the government that it will not be possible to hold the election of the local bodies before october/november, 1995. government has full respect for the order passed by this court; but in spite of the best efforts it was not possible to hold election within the time fixed by the court.6. after the fall of sri mulayam singh yadav's government, susri mayawati was installed as the chief minister on 3-6-1995 with a direction by the governor for seeking vote of confidence in the state legislative assembly on 20-6-1995. when a person is appointed to a high position as that of the chief minister with the condition of seeking vote of confidence within the time specified by the governor, normal functioning of the government cannot be expected. under such circumstances, it cannot be expected from a new government that it will carry out all its obligations immediately, its first priority being seeking of vote of confidence in the state assembly on the appointed date. that apart when a new person takes over the reign of the government he/she is likely to take time in appreciating the various problems. in the instant case even before seeking vote of confidence, the government has issued twonotifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 amending the rules and removing the anamolies in the matter of reservation. the government was also having consultation with the state election commission and it cannot be said that it was sleeping over the matter. the government's action seeking extension of time for holding the election is bona fide and no exception can be taken to it.7. it is not necessary that the government cannot seek time unless holding of election was physically impossible. if there are real difficulties in carrying out the orders of the court due to the change of the government or other unavoidable reason, it is always open to the government to approach the court for extension of time for complying with its order. changing the rules by two notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 cannot also be said to be an attempt for postponing the election. the government received complaints regarding reservation for backward classes and, therefore, it found it necessary to change the rules. that was its legislative function. such an action cannot be said to be mala fide. changing the rules by the government even before seeking the vote of confidence has to be appreciated. it indicates the desire of the government to hold election as expeditiously as possible. in this connection the government has also issued an ordinance for holding the election within the time specified therein. we have been informed that this ordinance has now been replaced by an act.8. for the reasons given above, this application is allowed. the time for holding the election in pursuance of the judgment of this court dated 25-5-1995, passed in writ petition no. 38469 of 1994 is extended up to november 30, 1995.9. application allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Sarvasri Anugrah Narain Sigh, Anil Kumar Yadav and Nisar Ahmad filed Writ Petition No. 38469 of 1994 for appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of U.P. to hold election of Local Self Government (Urban). After considering the earlier decisions of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed the Government of U.P. to hold the election for constituting Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations before July 31, 1995. As the Government could not hold election within the above period, it has moved an application supported by an affidavit in the third week of July, 1995, praying for extension of time to hold the election by November, 1995.

2. We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Additional Advocate General for Government of U.P. and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned. Senior Counsel for the petitioners, who filed the writ petition.

3. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain has opposed theextension of time on three grounds, namely, (i) it was incumbent on the Government to hold election within the time specified by the Court and replacement of the old Government by the new Government is no ground for not complying with the order of this Court; (ii) unless it is physically impossible to hold election within the time specified by the Court, there is no justification to extend the time; and (iii) the two notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 changing the rules for reservation for backward classes have been issued in order to delay the election and the application for extension of time is part of the same scheme and is, therefore, not a bona fide application. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Learned Advocate General for Government of U.P. has disputed the above contentions.

4. The Government of U.P. in support of this application has placed on record, in the form of affidavit, the following facts and circumstances.

5. After the judgment of this Court was delivered on 25-5-1995, directing the Government to hold the election by 31-7-1995,Coalition Government of Bahujan Samajwadi Party and Samajwadi Party, led by Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav was removed from power on account of withdrawal of support by Bahujan Samajwadi Party and Susri Mayawati was appointed as the new Chief Minister of this State and she was administered oath by the Governor on 3-6-1995 with the condition that she will seek the vote of confidence as Chief Minister in the U. P. Legislative Assembly on 20-6-1995. On 20-6-1995 the new Chief Minister secured the vote of confidence in the State Assembly and on 26-6-1995 she expanded her Cabinet. Immediately thereafter some vital changes were made in the administration. As there were lot of protests and objections to the method of reservation for Backward Classes, the Government changed the rules by notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995. Election Commission of Uttar Pradesh wrote a letter to the Government that it will not be possible to hold the election of the Local Bodies before October/November, 1995. Government has full respect for the order passed by this Court; but in spite of the best efforts it was not possible to hold election within the time fixed by the Court.

6. After the fall of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav's Government, Susri Mayawati was installed as the Chief Minister on 3-6-1995 with a direction by the Governor for seeking vote of confidence in the State Legislative Assembly on 20-6-1995. When a person is appointed to a high position as that of the Chief Minister with the condition of seeking vote of confidence within the time specified by the Governor, normal functioning of the Government cannot be expected. Under such circumstances, it cannot be expected from a new Government that it will carry out all its obligations immediately, its first priority being seeking of vote of confidence in the State Assembly on the appointed date. That apart when a new person takes over the reign of the Government he/she is likely to take time in appreciating the various problems. In the instant case even before seeking vote of confidence, the Government has issued twonotifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 amending the rules and removing the anamolies in the matter of reservation. The Government was also having consultation with the State Election Commission and it cannot be said that it was sleeping over the matter. The Government's action seeking extension of time for holding the election is bona fide and no exception can be taken to it.

7. It is not necessary that the Government cannot seek time unless holding of election was physically impossible. If there are real difficulties in carrying out the orders of the Court due to the change of the Government or other unavoidable reason, it is always open to the Government to approach the Court for extension of time for complying with its order. Changing the rules by two notifications dated 7-6-1995 and 16-6-1995 cannot also be said to be an attempt for postponing the election. The Government received complaints regarding reservation for backward classes and, therefore, it found it necessary to change the rules. That was its legislative function. Such an action cannot be said to be mala fide. Changing the rules by the Government even before seeking the vote of confidence has to be appreciated. It indicates the desire of the Government to hold election as expeditiously as possible. In this connection the Government has also issued an Ordinance for holding the election within the time specified therein. We have been informed that this Ordinance has now been replaced by an Act.

8. For the reasons given above, this application is allowed. The time for holding the election in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 25-5-1995, passed in Writ Petition No. 38469 of 1994 is extended up to November 30, 1995.

9. Application allowed.