Mohan Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission/ respondent no. 5.

This writ petition is filed in public interest seeking a direction to quash the notification dated 05.04.2018, issued by the State Government, merging certain villages with Dehradun Municipal Corporation. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 dated 29.08.2018 wherein the final notification issued on 25.10.2017 was quashed on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioner therein had not been considered.

We had in our order dated 15.11.2018, noted the submission of the learned Advocate General that the final notification dated 25.10.2018 was subjected to challenge in WPMS No. 2652 of 2017 and WPMS No. 290 of 2018, which formed part of the batch of cases in WPMS No. 3094 of 2017 and batch; all the notifications, including the final notification dated 25.10.2017, were quashed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 09.03.2018; thereafter, the State had issued a fresh preliminary notification dated 10.03.2018 calling for fresh objections; more than 1764 objections were received and considered; thereafter, a final notification was issued on 05.04.2018 merging the subject village with the Dehradun Municipal Corporation; an election notification was issued on 15.10.2018 fixing the date of election as 18.11.2018; and, in terms of order of the Division Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 3142 of 2018 dated 22.10.2018, elections were required to be held before the end of this year. We had, therefore, called for the records in WPMS No. 2652 of 2017 and WPMS No. 290 of 2018.

The records, in these two writ petitions, were made available for the perusal of both Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, to enable them to ascertain whether the validity of the notification dated 25. 10.2017 was under challenge in these two writ petitions.

Today, both Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the notification dated 25.10.2017 was the subject matter of challenge in WPMS No. 2652 of 2017 and WPMS No. 290 of 2018. If that be so then, since the said notification dated 25.10.2017 had already been quashed by the learned Single Judge by his order in WPMS No. 3094 of 2017 and batch, dated 09.03.2018, the notification dated 25.10.2017 which ceased to exist thereafter, could not have been quashed again. The order in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 dated 29.08.2018 whereby the notification dated 25.10.2017 was again quashed is, therefore, of no consequence.

The fact, however, remains that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which had passed the order in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 on 29.08.2018. The respondents have failed to refer to the factum of the notification dated 25. 10.2017 having been quashed, by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2018, in its counter affidavit filed in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 in July, 2018. Failure on the part of the respondents, in bringing these facts to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, has resulted in needless and avoidable litigation. While, fairly stating that the respondents had failed to bring these facts to the notice of this Court, learned Deputy Advocate General would request us to take a lenient view.

Writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are heard and decided mainly on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties on either side, and the documents annexed thereto. The direction issued in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 dated 29. 08.2018 could well have been avoided, if the respondents had brought it to the notice of the Court that the said notification dated 25.10.2017 had already been quashed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 09.03.2018. Failure on the part of the respondents, has resulted in an order, to that effect, being passed in WPPIL No. 136 of 2017 dated 29.08.2018.

With a view to ensure that such incidents do not recur in future, we direct respondent no. 2 to identify the officer, who had failed to bring it to the notice of the deponent of the counter affidavit that the notification dated 25.10.2017 had already been quashed by this Court in its order dated 09.03.2018; initiate minor penalty proceedings thereafter; and take action in accordance with law.

The relief sought in the present writ petition cannot be granted as, after the notification dated 25.10.2017 was quashed by the learned Single Judge on 09.03.2018, election to the Dehradun Municipal Corporation, including the subject village, was held on 18. 11.2018 pursuant to the direction of a Division Bench of this Court. Subject to the directions issued to respondent no. 2 as aforementioned, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.