Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19982 = 2025 :HHC: 8589
Decided on: 01.04.2025
For the petitioner:
Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:
Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Constitution of India, Article 243U -- President of Municipal Council -- Conversion of Municipal Council to Corporation – Contention that as term of Municipal Council is five years, in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, the Council has a right to continue for a period of five years – Held, Article 243-U shall have its forcibility provided the Council is still there -- If a decision is taken by the State to convert a Council into a Corporation then, as from the date when the Council become a Corporation, its term would end automatically.
(Para 6, 7)
***
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. (ORAL) –
Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a. Issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or Registrar direction declaring the action of the Respondents in preventing the Petitioner from functioning as President of the Municipal Council Una as illegal and unconstitutional.
b. An order directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to resume and continue duties as President of the Municipal Council Una until the completion of its five-year term or formal dissolution in accordance with the law.
c. An order restraining the Respondents from cancelling or suspending any on-going works and tender initiated by the Municipal Council Una, without following due process and providing valid reasons.”
3. The petitioner who claims herself to be the working President of Municipal Council, Una, has approached this Court primarily with the grievance that after the issuance of Notification dated 23.12.2024, in terms whereof the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, has been pleased to declare Municipal Council, Una, as a Corporation, to the known as Municipal Corporation, Una, from the date of publication of said Notification in Rajpatra Gazette, Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner is not being permitted to perform her duties as the President of the Municipal Council and further all the works which were being carried out by Municipal Council, Una, stand rescinded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Notification was to come into effect from the date of its publication in the Rajptra, e-Gazette, Himachal Pradesh, whereas, till today, the Notification has not been published in Rajptra, e-Gazette, Himachal Pradesh.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record copy of the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh, dated 26.12.2024, in which said Notification has been published.
6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the term of Municipal Council is five years, in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, the Council has a right to continue for a period of five years.
7. This Court does not agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the reason that Article 243-U of the Constitution of India, shall have its forcibility provided the Council is still there but if a decision is taken by the State to convert a Council into a Corporation then but natural, as from the date when the Council become a Corporation, its term would end automatically. Not only this, otherwise also, this contention of the petitioner has no force for the reason that there is no challenge to Notification dated 23.12.2024, issued by the respondents.
8. In the light of the said observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Petition dismissed.
********