HC dismisses petition challenging voting rights of nominated councillors
- Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A, says it violates right to speech
- Pakistan Day: PM greets, MoS VK Singh tweets #disgust
- DK Ravi's death: Govt calls in CBI, tells court he had a ‘relationship’ with batchmate
- Mufti Mohammad Sayeed says will take Army into confidence on AFSPA
- 1987 Hashimpura massacre: The photographs that stand witness
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on Monday, dismissed a petition challenging the voting rights of nine nominated councilors of the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh (MCC) for electing the Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
The petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
The bench held that the questions raised in the said petition will be taken up in a petition, pertaining to the same issue, which has been pending in the High Court since 1998.
Davinder Singh of Rajasthan had filed the petition challenging the voting rights of nominated councillors in the mayoral elections.
He had sought quashing of the provision of Section 4 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (as applicable to Chandigarh) whereby the voting rights had been conferred to nominated councillors.
The petitioner had mentioned that in Section 4 no criteria had been laid down with regard to nominated councillors.
Earlier, the court was apprised that the UT Administration had committed no wrong while nominating nine councilors in the House of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The Administration in its short reply, by undersecretary Ministry of Home Affairs Gopal Krishna Shukla, had informed the court that Section 4 (3)(ii) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 empowers the Administrator to nominate the nine councilors.
"Provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) empowering the UT Administrator to nominate nine members with voting rights are liable to be upheld being not violative of Article 243 R in view of the provisions of Articles 243ZB of the constitution," read the reply .