Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2021WPC/539/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of municipal councilors for having more than two living children. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Javed vs. State of Haryana, the court held the provision constitutional and rejected the plea of unreasonableness.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition challenging Rule 3.14 and Section 18(1)(n) dismissed; prayer for stay rejected.

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 539 of 2018

¶4

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.SKotwali, Town and District-Ranchi. .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and DistrictRanchi.

¶7

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.

¶8

………. Respondents

¶9

---------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to A.G.

¶12

Oral Judgment: Order No.12/Dated: 15^th March, 2021

¶13

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.

¶14

The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:

¶15

“(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

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

(ii) To also declare section 18 (1) (n) of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 ultra vires the Constitution of India.

¶19

(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.”

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

will be deprived from contesting the election on the pretext of a law which ultra vires the Constitution of India.

¶24

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 .

¶25

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).

¶26

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).

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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 .

¶30

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).

¶31

Accordingly, the instant writ petition, is dismissed.

¶32

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶33

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶34

Saket/-

¶35

N.A.F.R.

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mihir Kumar Singh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Excella Real Projects I Ltd. through Its Director Dulal Chandra Nandi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Others

Jharkhand Laghu Ewam Madhyam Samachar Patra Sangh Through Its Convenor Arun Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt Vs James Surin

The State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Human Resources Development Department Vs Laknu Sahu