Seth Vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors  Insc 549 (6
CJI R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan G.P. Mathur, J.
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 (1989) 4 SCC 187
(para 51) it has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a
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 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
548. In A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271, it was held that no
mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the
Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.