CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Monday adjourned the hearing on the pressing issue of inordinate delay in conduct of urban local body (ULB) polls in the State till January 10, 2022. Since the Notified Area Councils (NACs), municipalities and municipal corporations have been without elected representatives for nearly three years now, the ruling BJD has been under constant flak for the delay in conducting the polls from the State’s main opposition party, the BJP.
The Court was hearing three separate petitions filed by former minister and BJP leader Samir Dey, former administrator Prasanna Mishra, who is now with the part and Puri MLA Jayanta Sarangi. They had filed petitions for elections to Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and Puri Municipality respectively.
The Court had issued notices to the State government on August 25. A division bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray adjourned the matter for further hearing after listening to senior advocate Pitambar Acharya, the counsel for the petitioners for nearly an hour following State counsel DK Mohanty’s submission of two letters related to the issue.
The Director, Municipal Administration had issued the letters on October 25, 2021, to the district Collectors for completing the delimitation of wards by January 20, 2022. During his nearly one-hour long argument, Acharya first submitted that the election process does not start with notification for delimitation of wards but notification for the polls issued by the State Election Commission (SEC).
Acharya said Article 243-U of the Constitution stipulates that election to constitute a municipality shall have to be completed before the expiry of its term of five years. The delay and postponement of election to the ULBs amounts to frustrating the mandate of the Constitution. The State government cannot do so, he argued, citing several Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
On the SEC’s reply that it had written several letters to the State government, Acharya argued that it was incumbent upon the Commission to move the High Court instead of sitting as a mute spectator to the non-cooperation of the State government.