The Bombay High Court on Monday said the COVID-19 pandemic could be considered as a special circumstance and concession could be given in the mandatory six-month period for issuance of a notification for the delimitation of municipal wards.
A division bench of Justices Amjad Sayed and Abhay Ahuja made the observation orally while hearing public interest litigation, challenging the February 1 notification issued by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner I S Chahal proposing delimitation or changing of the boundaries of 236 electoral wards for the forthcoming civic elections.
The notification called for suggestions and objections on the same.
The Maharashtra government recently gave a go-ahead for increasing the number of civic wards to 236 from 227.
The PIL, filed by Nitesh Rajhans Singh of the BJP and Sagar Kantilal Devre of the MNS, challenged the "legality and propriety" of the notification and sought that it be quashed and set aside.
The petitioners' advocate, Vivek Shukla, argued that the term of the corporators expires sometime in February-March. The notification was issued on February 1 this year.
"The delimitation notice cannot be issued within six months of expiry of the term. It has to be done prior to that," argued Shukla.
The bench, however, noted that the COVID-19 pandemic could be considered as special circumstance.
"There was the pandemic.there has to be some concession," Justice Sayed said.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on Tuesday and directed the State Election Commission's (SEC) advocate to remain present before the HC.
The BMC had published the notification along with the maps of wards, seeking suggestions and objections from the public till February 14.
The number of electoral wards in Mumbai has been increased from 227 to 236 and boundaries of the wards have also been changed. Out of the nine new wards, three each have been increased in the island city, western suburbs and eastern suburbs.
BMC's counsel Anil Sakhare on Monday told the court that an additional secretary of the state government has been appointed to hear the objections and suggestions received by the civic body.
"The officer will conduct the hearing on February 22 and submit a report on March 1," Sakhare said.
The petitioners have claimed that despite the SEC not delegating powers to the BMC commissioner to come up with such a notification, he did so and the same was arbitrary.
Shukla argued that the notification was issued by BMC Commissioner Iqbal Chahal, when he was not authorised to do the same.
He said as per an order passed by the Supreme Court, the officer appointed to conduct the hearing and submit a report has to be independent and from another state.
"Here, the BMC functions under the state government. How can he (BMC commissioner) be independent?" he argued.
The petitioners said the SEC had in 2005 directed not to make any change in area and boundaries in six months before expiry of the tenure of the local self government (municipality).
They said that on December 29, 2021, the SEC had issued an order to hold the election in a fearless, free and transparent ambience.
However, the impugned notification does not refer to the December 29 order and the same is arbitrary, the plea said.
.png)
