Uttarakhand HC sets aside order on quashing notification for expansion of civic bodies
In a major relief to the state government, a division bench of Uttarakhand high court on Tuesday set aside its earlier order quashing the April 5 notification for expansion of municipal bodies in the state, advocate general SN Babulkar saiddehradun Updated: May 22, 2018 22:27 IST
In a major relief to the state government, a division bench of Uttarakhand high court on Tuesday set aside its earlier order quashing the April 5 notification for expansion of municipal bodies in the state, advocate general SN Babulkar said.
The division bench of chief justice KM Joseph and justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, after a daylong hearing, allowed special appeals of the state government in 15 of 16 cases, said Babulkar, who represented the government in the case.
It also dismissed writ petitions from over half a dozen districts challenging the delimitation process in their areas, he said. The high court will hear the remaining special appeal on Wednesday.
The ruling came after the state government on Thursday challenged the quashing of its delimitation notification by the single bench of the high court.
The single bench of justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on May 14 quashed the notification while hearing petitions from villagers from over half a dozen districts, including Nainital, Dehradun, US Nagar, Champawat, Haridwar, Uttar Kashi, Pithoragarh and Pauri.
Counsels of the petitioners, especially former advocate general VBS Negi, in their argument stressed that it was discretion of the governor to issue the notification, while the state government’s counsel argued the notification was issued on behalf of the governor and in accordance with provisions of the constitution.
Negi said in the provisions regarding delimitation of municipalities, the word ‘government’ was replaced by ‘governor’ in the 74th amendment of the constitution in 1992 and later the UP municipality act 1994 was amended accordingly.
Babulkar told the media that he has maintained that the notification was issued on behalf of the governor and governor means the state government.
The division bench, in its remarks while citing various judgments of the Supreme Court, said the governor was the formal head of the state government and all executive decisions of the government were taken on his behalf.
The governor had no personal discretion, the bench stated, adding it can be borne from the fact that a governor cannot be personally sued. His actions were deemed not his actions, but that of the government, the high court said.