SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Suresh Seth
Vs.
Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation
C.A.No.9444 of 2003
(R.C.Lahoti CJI. and G.P.Mathur JJ.)
06.10.2005
JUDGMENT
G. P. Mathur, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and
order dated 7.5.2003 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the Civil
Revision filed by Bhanu Kumar Jain was dismissed.
2. The election for the Office of Mayor, Municipal Corporation of Indore, was
notified on 25.11.1999. The election was held on 27.12.1999 and the result was
declared on 3.1.2000 wherein Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya, respondent No. 3, was
elected as Mayor. One Bhanu Kumar Jain filed an election petition challenging
the election of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya as Mayor on several grounds and the
principal ground taken was that he being a sitting member of the Legislative
Assembly, was disqualified for holding the Office of Mayor of a corporation
under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The election petition was
dismissed by the XII Additional District Judge, Indore, by the judgment and
order dated 11.4.2002. Bhanu Kumar Jain then filed a civil revision under
Section 441-F of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in the High Court,
which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003, which is the
subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.
3. The term of a Mayor under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 is five
years and it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
term of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya has already come to an end. In these
circumstances, no effective relief can be granted in the present appeal and the
same has become infructuous by passage of time.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a direction be issued
that an election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate
should be decided expeditiously by the trial court and the revision petition
preferred in the High Court should also be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible. The appellant has not filed copy of the order sheet of the trial
court or of the High Court, which could give some indication as to who is
responsible for the delay in the final disposal of the matter. Even the
judgment of the trial court has not been filed along with the special leave
petition. In absence of complete material having been placed on record, it will
not be proper for us to issue any direction in this regard.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that this Court should
issue directions for an appropriate amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation
Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred from simultaneously holding two
elected offices, namely that of a member of the Legislative Assembly and also
of Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. In our opinion, this is a matter of
policy for the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in
this regard can be issued by the court. That apart this Court cannot issue any
direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under
our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise
sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a
direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court
Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India (referred) (para 51) it
has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law.
Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by
way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a
legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it
has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority. This
view has been reiterated in State of J & K vs. A.R. Zakki (relied).
In A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (relied), it was held that no mandamus
can be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the legislature.
Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot
be accepted.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.