Supreme Court of India
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK)versusSECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1326
- Decided
- 6 December 2019
- Disposal
- IA disposed
Holding
Elections in the nine newly re‑constituted districts cannot be held until a fresh delimitation exercise, consistent with Article 243‑C and the 2017 Regulations, is completed.
Summary
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) sought to strike down a Tamil Nadu Government notification that scheduled local body elections in nine newly created districts without first completing a fresh delimitation exercise. The State had increased the number of districts from 31 to 39 and announced an election programme, but the DMK argued that the constitutional requirements of Articles 243‑B, 243‑C and 243‑D, which demand proper delimitation and reservation based on the latest census, were not satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the object of Part IX of the Constitution cannot be achieved unless delimitation of wards is carried out in accordance with the 2017 Regulations and the Constitution, and that elections in the nine re‑constituted districts must be postponed until such delimitation is completed. The Court rejected the respondents' claim that the applications amounted to "calling in question an election" and applied the ratio from Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar. Consequently, the Court directed that elections be held in all districts except the nine newly formed ones, and ordered the Delimitation Commission to complete delimitation within four months, with appropriate reservation provisions.
Issues considered
- The validity of conducting local body elections in the nine newly created districts without a fresh delimitation exercise.
- Whether the Supreme Court's earlier order permitting election notification can be relied upon despite the lack of completed delimitation.
- Whether the interlocutory applications constitute a challenge to the election process under Articles 243‑O and 243‑ZG.
- The applicability of constitutional provisions of Articles 243‑B, 243‑C and 243‑D to the present situation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
local body electionsdelimitationpanchayatConstitutional lawreservation of seatsdistrict bifurcationjudicial reviewinterlocutory applications
Judgment
704 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 14 S.C.R. 704
REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK)
v.
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
(IA No. 182868/2019 )
B In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5467-5469/2017)
DECEMBER 06, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
C
Constitution of India – Part IX – Arts.243-B, 243-C r/w 243-
B(1), 243-O & 243-ZG – Lead applicant (in present IAs) is the
appellant in C.A.Nos.5467-5469/17, wherein an order of the
Madras High Court refusing to issue certain directions to the Tamil
Nadu State Election Commission was challenged – It was claimed
D therein that the State Government was deliberately postponing
elections; unconstitutionally altering constituencies and refusing
to effect rotation for gaining undue political advantage – On
12.11.2019, the State Government issued notification dividing four
existing districts of Tamil Nadu to create nine new districts – In
view of deference to various Supreme Court orders, the State
E Election Commission on 02.12.2019 announced the Elections
Programme for all Panchayats at the village, intermediate and
district levels – Present IAs filed inter alia to strike down the said
Notification and direction to conduct local body elections only after
delimitation of the newly carved districts – Held: Constitutional
F object of Part IX, envisaging democratisation of grass-root level
administration, cannot be effectively achieved unless the
delimitation exercise for constitution of local bodies at all levels
is properly undertaken – Such exercise in the State of Tamil Nadu
must keep in view the criteria for delimitation of wards prescribed
under the 2017 Regulations, which criteria must itself not be
G contrary to Art.243-C r/w Art.243-B(1) – Election process as
notified on 02.12.2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine
districts cannot be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect
thereto is first completed – State Government cannot justify holding
local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon Supreme
Court’s order dated. 18.11.2019 as the said order itself mandates
H
704
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 705
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
notification of elections only after completing “all legal A
formalities”– Directions issued – Further, the only grievance raised
in the main appeals was that the local body elections ought be held
on the basis of the 2011 Census and not of 2001; and considering
how the respondents have already used the 2011 Census while
conducting the latest delimitation exercise (except in the newly re-
constituted nine districts), these appeals are rendered infructuous B
– Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 – Tamil
Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017 – Tamil Nadu Local
Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 – Tamil Nadu Panchayats
(Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995
– r.6. C
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before the election process could begin as
per the Sate Election Commission’s Press Release dated 2 nd
December, 2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number
of districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. D
However, with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
of District Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be
held only for 31 posts. As per Article 243-B, panchayats have
to mandatorily be constituted in a State at the village,
intermediate and district levels. Article 243-C requires the State,
E
as far as is practicable, to maintain a similar ratio between the
population residing within the territory of a particular panchayat
and the number of seats allocated to it, across all panchayats in
the State. Further, each panchayat must be divided into territorial
constituencies and per Article 243-D, seats in proportion to their
population must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and F
Scheduled Tribes in each panchayat. The constitutional object
of Part IX cannot be effectively achieved unless the delimitation
exercise for constitution of local bodies at all levels is properly
undertaken. Such exercise in the State of Tamil Nadu must keep
in view the criteria for delimitation of wards prescribed under
the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 G
(formulated under the Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act,
2017), which criteria must itself not be contrary to Article 243-
C read with Article 243-B(1) of the Constitution. Noticing how
at the completion of the delimitation process there were only
31 revenue districts, but despite a subsequent increase in H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A number of districts to 39, no fresh delimitation exercise has been
undertaken, it is clear that the State Government cannot fulfil
the aforestated Constitutional mandate. There is no identified
data elucidating population proportions and hence requisite
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot
be provided for, both in re village panchayat wards or Chairman/
B Vice-Chairman of District bodies. The election process as
notified by the State Election Commission on 2 nd December,
2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts cannot
be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is
first completed. The State Government cannot justify holding
C local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon
Supreme Court’s order dated 18 th November, 2019 as the said
order itself mandates notification of elections only after
completing “all legal formalities”. The contention of the
respondents that the present proceedings amount to “calling in
question an election” and hence not being maintainable in view
D of the express constitutional embargos of Articles 243-O and
243-ZG does not impress, for the present proceedings are only
to further the expeditious completion of pre-requisites of a fair
election. [Paras 10-14] [712-D-E-H; 713-A-G]
1.2 Directions:
E a) The Respondent-authorities shall hold elections to all
Panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels, except
those in the nine reconstituted districts; b) The Respondents
(including the Delimitation Commission) are directed to delimit
the nine newly-constituted districts in accordance with law and
thereafter hold elections for their panchayats at the village,
F
intermediate and district levels within a period of four months;
c) There shall be no legal impediment against holding elections
for Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels for
rest of the districts; d) State Election Commission shall notify
elections for the panchayats at village, intermediate and district
G levels in respect of all districts except the nine re-constituted
districts as per the details given in direction ‘a’; e) While
conducting elections, the respondents shall provide
proportionate reservation at all levels, in accordance with the
Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and
Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules,1995. [Para 15] [714-E-H;
H 715-A-D]
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 707
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
1.3 The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu has also agreed A
to proceed with the election process as directed. Since, the only
grievance raised in the main appeals was that the local body
elections ought be held on the basis of the 2011 Census and not
of 2001; and considering how the respondents have already used
the 2011 Census while conducting the latest delimitation
exercise (except in the newly re-constituted nine districts), these B
appeals have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of
accordingly. [Paras 16, 17] [715-D-F]
Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and
Others (2000) 8 SCC 216 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 34
– relied on. C
Case Law Reference
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 34 relied on Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE/JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 182868 of 2019
in Civil Appeal Nos. 5467-5469 of 2017. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2016 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 23411, 23417
& 23418 of 2016
With
E
M.A. No.2328 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.1267 of 2018, IA Nos.
183503, 183515, 163332, 183506, 186721 and 186722, 185943 of 2019,
Contempt Petition (C) Diary No.38969 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.1267/
2018, W.P.(C) Nos.1411, 1415, 1413, 1418, 1417, 1420 of 2019, Writ
Petition (C) Diary No.43683 of 2019
F
Vijay Narayan, AG, Ms. Narmadha Sampath, Balaji Srinivasan,
AAGs, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohtagi, P.S. Narasimha,
Aryama Sundaram, K.V. Vishwanathan, P. Wilson, Sr. Advs., Amit
Anand Tiwari, Amit Bhandari, Shashwat Singh, Vivek Singh, Ms. Mary
Mitzy, R. Neelakandan, M.P. Parthiban, D. Kumanan, Suvendu Suvasis
Dash, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Ms. Rangoli Seth, Ashwani G
Kumar, Mrs. Vinitha, Thanga Durai, Vinodh Kanna B., Lenin
Rajaseharan, M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, R. Karthikeyan,
Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Arjun Singh, Nedunchallian, Rahul G.
Tanwani, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Ms. Kanti, Sudhakaran
R., Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, J. Arul Prakasam, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A R. Nilavazhayan, J. Suresh, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Gowtham Kumar, Ishan
Bisht, Ms. Palak Mahajan, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Rahul Pratap, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
B JUDGEMENT
1. These Interlocutory Applications have been filed seeking
directions for compliance with the Constitutional mandate concerning
elections to local bodies. The lead applicant, Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK), is appellant in the Civil Appeal Nos. 5467-5469 of
C 2017, wherein an order of the Madras High Court refusing to issue
certain directions to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (“State
Election Commission”) is under challenge before us. It is also the
principal Opposition party in the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Tamil Nadu and is a recognised State-party.
D 2. In the Civil Appeal DMK claimed that the party-in-power at
the State level, the AIADMK, has deliberately been postponing
elections; unconstitutionally been altering constituencies and refusing
to effect rotation with the object of gaining undue political advantage.
They have claimed that Articles 243-D and 243-T mandated that
E delimitation of constituencies be conducted after every decadal census
and concomitant reservations be effected for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes on a ‘rotation’ basis. In so far as the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 allowed the next cycle of
local elections in Tamil Nadu to be conducted as per the earlier 2001
Census, it contravened Constitutional provisions and was thus liable to
F be struck down.
3. The aforestated issues have, however, been rendered academic
by constitution of a Delimitation Commission under the newly enacted
Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017. This Commission
initiated an elaborate exercise of delimitation on 25 th July, 2017 and
G eventually formulated a draft ward delimitation proposal on 20 th
September, 2017. Thereafter, written objections were invited from the
public, various political parties and organisations between 20 th
December, 2017 and 18 th January, 2018. After considering such
objections/suggestions and the revised proposals received from District
H Delimitation Authorities, the Delimitation Commission sent its final
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 709
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
recommendation to the State Government on 31 st August, 2018. A
Thereafter, a notification was issued by the State Government on 14th
December, 2018 whereby the wards newly delimited per the 2011
Census figures were notified.
4. Thereafter, on 20 th February, 2019 the Delimitation
Commission forwarded proposals for reservation, whereupon post B
consideration, the State Government vide notifications dated 20th May,
2019, 21st May, 2019 and 24th May, 2019 notified reserved seats for
rural and urban local bodies in the State.
5. It is noteworthy that soon after on 12th November, 2019 the C
State Government issued a notification dividing four existing districts
of Tamil Nadu to create nine new districts. Vellore district was
trifurcated into the districts of Vellore, Tirupathur and Ranipet;
Kancheepuram was bifurcated into Kancheepuram and Chengalpet;
Villupuram was bifurcated into Villupuram and Kallakurichi; and
D
Tirunelveli was bifurcated into Tirunelveli and Tenkasi districts.
Resultantly, some talukas were also re-structured with certain revenue
villages either being added or removed. Para 7 of the aforestated
notification then reads as follows:
“7. The delimitation of the territorial wards of Village Panchayats, E
Panchayat Union and District Panchayats have already been
notified under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu
Act 21 of 1994) and thereby the delimitation exercise for the
ensuing local body elections has already been completed.
Notwithstanding the notification to bifurcate the Districts, the F
process started already to conduct the ensuing Local Body
Elections will be continued as per the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 17.07.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 1267/2018.
After the ensuing Local Body Elections, the process of
modification, if any, with regard to local bodies will be taken up
G
by the Government.”
6. As is apparent from the above extract, there is a pointed
reference to this Court’s order dated 17th July, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.
1267 of 2018. This Order was delivered in M.A. No. 2328 of 2019
which was filed by the State Election Commission and reads as under: H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A “On 2nd July, 2019, this Court had passed the following order:-
“The respondent No.1, the Tamil Nadu State Election
Commission, shall file an affidavit within two weeks hence,
indicating the time within which the delimitation exercise that
is stated to be at an advance stage, will be completed and
B when elections to the local bodies can be held.”
List the matter on 17th July, 2019.
Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 15th July, 2019, has been filed
by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission.
We have perused the said affidavit and we are satisfied with the
C grounds mentioned therein, which explain the delay in completion
of the delimitation exercise and in issuing the notification in
respect of local bodies elections. We have also taken note of the
fact that in paragraph 28, the Secretary of the State Election
Commission has stated that the notification announcing the
schedule of the election will be published in the last week of
D
October, 2019.
In view of the aforesaid statement made before the Court in the
affidavit filed by the Secretary of the State Election Commission,
we permit the State authority to act in the manner as undertaken
before the Court i.e. publish the election notification in the last
E week of October, 2019.........”
7. Thereafter this Court passed the following order on 18 th
November, 2019.
“List on 13.12.2019, by which time we hope and expect
that Notification will be issued after completing all legal
F formalities.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel states that
there are some connected matters, i.e., SLP(C) Nos. 28881-
28883/2016 and batch.
List all the connected matters together before the appropriate
G Bench, after obtaining orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India.”
8. In purported deference to the above reproduced Orders, the
State Election Commission on 2nd December, 2019 announced the
Programme of Elections for all Panchayats at the village, intermediate
H and district levels, which is as follows:
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 711
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
PROGRAMME OF ELECTION A
1. Publication of public notice of election and 06.12.2019
commencement of receipt of nominations
2. Last date of making nominations 13.12.2019
3. Scrutiny of nominations 16.12.2619 B
4. Withdrawal of candidates 18.12.2019
5. Dates of Poll Phase – I 27.12.2019
Phase - II 30.12.2019
6. Date of commencement of counting of votes 02.01.2020 C
7. Date before which the election shall be completed 04.01.2020
8. Date on which the first meeting of the newly elected 06.01.2020
ward members shall be held for assumption of office
by taking oath or affirmation
D
9. Date of which the meeting of the ward members shall 11.01.2020
be held for the election of Vice-Presidents or
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, as the case may be.
9. The notified election programme further provides as follows:
“Posts for Direct Elections: E
Direct election would be held to fill up the total of 1,18,974 posts
in Rural Local bodies, out of which
· 655 Posts of Village Panchayat Ward members within 31
District Panchayats;
6,471 Posts of Panchayat Union Ward Members within 388 F
Panchayat Unions;
12,524 Posts of Village Panchayat Presidents and 99,324
posts of Village Panchayat Ward Members are included.
Political Party Based Elections and Non-political Party
G
based Elections:
The election to the posts of Village Panchayat Presidents and
Village Panchayat Ward Members will be as Non-Political Party
based Elections; the election to the posts of District Panchayat
Ward Members and Panchayat Union Ward Members will be
as Political party based Election. H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A Indirect Elections:
Indirect Elections to the following posts will be held on 11.01.2020
through the elected representatives of the local bodies.
B Posts of Chairman of District Panchayat Council 31
Posts of Vice-Chairman of District Panchayat Council 31
Posts of Chairman of Panchayat Union Council 388
Posts of Vice-Chairman of Panchayat Union Council 388
C Posts of Vice-President of Village Panchayat President 12,524
13,362
10. It thus emerges that before the election process could begin
as per the Sate Election Commission’s Press Release dated 2 nd
D December, 2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number of
districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. However,
with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District
Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be held only for 31
posts. This resultant incongruity has prompted the appellants to file
E these applications with prayers to strike down the Notification dated
2nd December, 2019; hold elections for the entire State comprising all
39 Revenue Districts; and conduct such local body elections only after
completion of all legal formalities i.e. after delimitation of the newly
carved districts. A specific direction has also been prayed for, to compel
the respondents to first carry out delimitation, reservation, rotation
F
processes and fulfil all other legal requirements before notifying or
conducting elections of any panchayat at the village, intermediate or
district level.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable
length and after an indepth analysis of various Statutory provisions as
G
well as the constitutional scheme under Part IX which envisages
democratisation of grass-root level administration, we are of the view
that, as per Article 243-B, panchayats have to mandatorily be
constituted in a State at the village, intermediate and district levels.
Article 243-C requires the State, as far as is practicable, to maintain a
H similar ratio between the population residing within the territory of a
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 713
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
particular panchayat and the number of seats allocated to it, across all A
panchayats in the State. Further, each panchayat must be divided into
territorial constituencies and per Article 243-D, seats in proportion to
their population must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in each panchayat.
12. It is thus clear that the constitutional object of Part IX cannot B
be effectively achieved unless the delimitation exercise for constitution
of local bodies at all levels is properly undertaken. Such exercise in
the State of Tamil Nadu must keep in view the criteria for delimitation
of wards prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation
Regulations, 2017 (formulated under the Tamil Nadu Delimitation C
Commission Act, 2017), which criteria must itself not be contrary to
Article 243-C read with Article 243-B(1) of the Constitution.
13. Noticing how at the completion of the delimitation process
there were only 31 revenue districts, but despite a subsequent increase
in number of districts to 39, no fresh delimitation exercise has been D
undertaken, it is clear that the State Government cannot fulfil the
aforestated Constitutional mandate. There is no identified data
elucidating population proportions and hence requisite reservation for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be provided for, both
in re village panchayat wards or Chairman/Vice-Chairman of District E
bodies. We hence have no doubt that the election process as notified
by the State Election Commission on 2nd December, 2019, in respect
of the newly constituted nine districts cannot be held unless fresh
delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed. The State
Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine
districts by relying upon this Court’s order dated 18 th November, 2019 F
as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after
completing “all legal formalities”.
14. The contention of the respondents that the present
proceedings amount to “calling in question an election” and hence not
G
being maintainable in view of the express constitutional embargos of
Articles 243-O and 243-ZG does not impress us for the present
proceedings are only to further the expeditious completion of pre-
requisites of a fair election. Hence, the following ratio of a coordinate
Bench in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others
[2000 (8) SCC 216] squarely applies to the present case: H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.
A “(2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling
in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election
and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done
towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings
cannot be described as questioning the election.
B (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by
Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-
settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of
statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary
exercise of power being made out or the statutory body been
shown to have acted in breach of law.
C
(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of
the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if
assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or
smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove
the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if
D
the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable
by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking
the jurisdiction of the court.”
15. For the reasons aforestated, these applications are allowed
in part and disposed of with the following directions:
E
a. The Respondent-authorities shall hold elections to all
Panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels,
except those in the following nine reconstituted districts:
i. Kancheepuram
F ii. Chengalpattu
iii. Vellore
iv. Thirupathur
v. Ranipet
G
vi. Villupuram
vii. Kallakurichi
viii. Tirunelveli
H ix. Tenkasi;
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) v. 715
SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.
b. The Respondents (including the Delimitation Commission) A
are directed to delimit the nine newly-constituted districts
in accordance with law and thereafter hold elections for
their panchayats at the village, intermediate and district
levels within a period of four months;
c. There shall be no legal impediment against holding elections B
for Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district
levels for rest of the districts;
d. State Election Commission shall notify elections for the
panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels in
respect of all districts except the nine re-constituted C
districts as per the details given in direction ‘a’ above.;
e. While conducting elections, the respondents shall provide
proportionate reservation at all levels, in accordance with
the Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats
and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995. D
16. In all fairness, we must note that the learned Advocate
General of Tamil Nadu has also agreed to proceed with the election
process as directed above.
17. Since, the only grievance raised in the main appeals was that
the local body elections ought be held on the basis of the 2011 Census E
and not of 2001; and considering how the respondents have already
used the 2011 Census while conducting the latest delimitation exercise
(except in the newly re-constituted nine districts), these appeals have
been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
18. All pending I.As. also stand disposed of accordingly. F
Divya Pandey I.As. disposed of.
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "local body elections"Sign in to search