Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 15 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 539 of 2018
Rajesh Kumar Verma, son of Late Ram Kumar Verma, aged about 38
years, resident of Ved Narayan Lane, Kachahri Road, P.O-G.P.O, P.S-
Kotwali, Town and District-Ranchi. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-
Ranchi.
2.The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing
Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
.......... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to A.G.
-----------
Oral Judgment:
Order No.12/Dated: 15th March, 2021
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done
through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever
regarding audio and visual quality.
2. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) To declare Rule 3.14 (as amended up-to-date)
of Jharkhand Municipal Elected Representative
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2017 ultra vires the
Constitution of India and thereby to quash and set
aside the same, as notified by Notification
No.01/Policy Decision-10/2016/U.D.H-5421 Ranchi
dated 22.8.2017 (Annexure-3) and Notification No.
01/Policy Decision-10/2016/U.D.H-6669 Ranchi
dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure-4), issued under the pen
and signature of respondent no.2.
(ii) To also declare section 18 (1) (n) of Jharkhand
Municipal Act, 2011 ultra vires the Constitution of
India.
(iii) During the pendency of this writ petition, the
operation, implementation and execution of the
provisions enshrined in Section 18 (1) (n) of the
Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and both the
Notifications dated 22.8.2017 (Annexure-3) and
30.10.2017 (Annexure-4) to the extent of Rule 3.14,
may kindly be stayed."
3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has
submitted that the provision as contained in Rule 3.14 of Jharkhand
Municipal Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2017
ultra vires the Constitution of India as has been notified vide
notification dated 22.08.2017 which provides the provision of
disqualification of councilors if he has more than two living children,
provided that a person having more than two children on or up to the
expiry of one year of the commencement of the Act, shall not be
deemed to be disqualified.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of such
provision, the petitioner will not be able to contest the municipal
election of the Councilors of the Municipal Corporation and as such, he
will be deprived from contesting the election on the pretext of a law
which ultra vires the Constitution of India.
According to the learned counsel, the provision as contained under
Section 18(1) (n) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is in the teeth
of Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and further based
upon unreasonable classification and therefore, the same is fit to be held
ultra vires.
4. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C to learned Advocate General has
submitted that the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana
and Others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 369 wherein the provision of
disqualification on the basis of having more than two living children
have been held to be not ultra vires, therefore, submission has been
made that the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the basis of
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed and
Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (supra).
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
document available on record and on appreciation of the rival
submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties,
deem it fit and proper to go across the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex in the case of Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana
and Others (supra).
6. We have gone across the aforesaid judgment and found therefrom
that the issue rendered in the case of Javed and Others vs. State of
Haryana and Others (supra) pertains to disqualification from holding
the office of Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and Panch, if the person having
more than two living children. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing
with the issue has been pleased to hold that such provision of
debarment is not ultra vires.
7. We, therefore, are of the view that the instant writ petition deserves
to be dismissed on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana and
Others (supra).
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
N.A.F.R.
