MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging a notification issued by BMC chief for suggestions and objections from citizens on the proposed delimitation of civic wards, and termed the PIL as "thoroughly misconceived and politically motivated".
The HC also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on the two petitioners - Nitesh Ranjhans Singh (BJP) and Sagar Devre (MNS) - who had contended that the BMC commissioner does not have the powers to issue such a notification.
The cash rich Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is controlled by the Shiv Sena and the civic polls are due later this year.
"The PIL petition, filed by members of rival political parties to the ruling coalition government, appears to be politically motivated, ostensibly filed in public interest," a division bench of Justices Amjad Sayed and Abhay Ahuja said in its order.
The public interest ligitation (PIL) had challenged the legality and propriety of the BMC notification of February 1 inviting suggestions and objections from the public on the proposed delimitation of wards, to increase their number from 227 to 236 ahead of the corporation elections.
The petitioners' main contention was that BMC Commissioner I S Chahal, who had issued the notification, was not authorised to do so.
The State Election Commission (SEC) had earlier told the court that it had delegated the power to the BMC Commissioner for the purpose of elections.
As per the SEC, when such powers are delegated to state officers, they act as delegates of the election commission and not as an officer of the state government.
On Monday, while dismissing the PIL, the court said it was accepting the statement made by the SEC that due to lack of manpower, it has appointed state officers as its delegates for election purposes and that any final decision on the delimitation of wards would be taken by the commission only.
The bench said as per provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, the State Election Commissioner may by order delegate any of his powers and functions inter alia to any officer of the corporation not below the rank of ward officer.
"In the teeth of this provision, we fail to see how it is open for the petitioners to contend that no power can be delegated by the State Election Commissioner upon the municipal commissioner to publish the impugned draft notification," the HC said in its order.
The court also refused to accept the contention raised in the petition that as per a 2005 order of the SEC, there can be no exercise of alteration in the boundaries within six months of the Corporation Election.
The court said this bar applies only to alteration of the outer boundaries of the corporation area.
"The bar does not apply to the alteration of ward boundaries within the corporation area.
In other words, there should not be any inclusion/exclusion of area within/from the area of the corporation within six months prior to the month of election," the order said.
In the present case, there is no alteration in the boundaries of the corporation, it added.
The BMC and the SEC had earlier informed the court that the final date for submitting the suggestions and objections was February 14 and 816 letters were received as on that date.
An IAS officer, Manoj Saunik, who is presently additional chief secretary (finance), has been appointed to conduct a hearing on the objections and suggestions of the public.
A report would be submitted to the SEC on March 1 and a final decision on the formation of new wards rests with the State Election Commissioner.