Reeta Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

A common order was passed by us in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019. While five of these Writ Petitions (i.e. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3715 of 2018, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3770 of 2018, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3793 of 2018 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3870 of 2018) related to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 related to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat.

Separate notifications issued by the State Government earlier, constituting both the Roorkee Municipal Corporation and the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat, were quashed by us by our order in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Uttarakhand preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 22176, 22348 and 22227 of 2019, which were listed before the Supreme Court on 23.09.2019, and two others SLPs are said to have been listed subsequently. In the Special Leave Petitions, relating to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court had, by its order dated 23.09.2019, stayed the operation of the judgment passed by us in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019. The Supreme Court further observed that, in view of the interim relief, they expected the State Government, as well as the State Election Commission, to proceed with the matter expeditiously.

Though the State Government did not prefer a Special Leave Petition against the order passed by us in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 121 of 2019, which was also allowed by us by our common order in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019, yet they treated the notification issued earlier, which was quashed by us by the aforesaid order, as having revived and are proceeding with the conduct of elections to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat in terms of the said notification, questioning which the present Writ Petition is filed.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order passed by this Court, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 121 of 2019 on 23.07.2019, continues to remain in force as it has not been subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court till date; unlike the Writ Petitions relating to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, wherein the Supreme Court had, by its order dated 23.09.2019, stayed the order passed by this Court on 23.07.2019, thereby enabling the State Government to hold elections in terms of the previous notification, no such order has been passed by the Supreme Court with respect to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat; the order passed by this Court, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, has not been subjected to challenge till date; and since the order of this Court, quashing the notification relating to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat, continues to remain in force, the respondents cannot conduct elections in terms of a non-existent notification.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would contend that, since a common order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019, and the said order dated 23.07.2019 has been stayed by the Supreme Court in its order in Special Leave Petition No. 22176 of 2019 and batch dated 23.09.2019, the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 must also be held to have been implicitly stayed by the Supreme Court. He would further state that the State Government intends preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court even against the order passed by us in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019 and as an order, similar to that passed by the Supreme Court on 23.09.2019, is likely to be passed in such an appeal also, no interference is called for by this Court. We must express our inability to agree.

While it is no doubt true that a common order was passed by us in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019 and batch dated 23.07.2019, five of these Writ Petitions related to the notification which was issued re-constituting the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, and it is Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 alone which related to the re-constitution of the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat. In its order, in Special Leave Petition Nos. 22176 of 2019 and batch dated 23.09.2019, the Supreme Court has stayed the order dated 23.07.2019 with respect to three Writ Petitions relating to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation. We are informed that, subsequently, a similar order of stay was passed by the Supreme Court with respect to the other two Special Leave Petitions relating to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation.

A common order was no doubt passed both with respect to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation and the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat. Since the stay granted by the Supreme Court relates only to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, relating to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat, continues to remain in force.

Even if the submission of Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that the Supreme Court is likely to pass a similar order with respect to the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat, as was passed with respect to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation on 23.09.2019, is held not to be without merit, it is only after the State Government prefers a Special Leave Petition against the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, and obtains a similar interim order as was granted by the Supreme Court on 23.09.2019 with respect to the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, can it thereafter act on the basis of the notification which was quashed by us in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019. As long as the order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019 continues to remain in force, no action can be taken by the State Government in terms of the earlier notification, re-constituting the Selaqui Nagar Panchayat, which has already been quashed by this Court.

Suffice it in such circumstances, while recording the submission of Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that the State Government intends to prefer a Special Leave Petition against the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, to direct the respondents not to give effect to the notification dated 03.10.2019 (reviving the earlier notification) as long as the order passed by us, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019, continues to remain in force and is not stayed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, if any, preferred by the State Government.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.