Le­gal­ity of nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors chal­lenged

Hindustan Times (Chandigarh) - Live - - FRONT PAGE - HT Live Correspondent chdlivedesk@hin­dus­tan­times.com

■ CHANDI­GARH: The le­gal­ity of nom­i­na­tion of nine coun­cil­lors of the Chandi­garh mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tion and their vot­ing rights to elect mayor, se­nior deputy mayor and deputy mayor was chal­lenged in the Pun­jab and haryana high court on Thurs­day.

Tak­ing a note of the pe­ti­tion, the va­ca­tion bench of jus­tice K Kan­nan and jus­tice Te­jin­der Singh Dhindsa di­rected that the nom­i­na­tion of coun­cil­lors and elec­tions of mayor, se­nior deputy mayor and deputy mayor sched­uled for Jan­uary 1, 2012, would be sub­ject to the out­come of the pe­ti­tion.

The bench also is­sued no­tice of mo­tion to the Chandi­garh ad­min­is­tra­tion and nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors, in­clud­ing Anoop Sunny Gill, Prof Aruna Goel, Dr Am­rit Ti­wari, Babu Lal, DS Sandhu, MP Kohli, Sat Paul Bansal, Sh­agufta Parveen and Surinder Bahga, to file re­ply by Jan­uary 27, 2012.

The pe­ti­tioner, Davin­der Singh of Sri­g­an­gana­gar district, Ra­jasthan, sought quash­ing of the pro­vi­sion of Sec­tion 4 of

THE NOM­I­NA­TION OF COUN­CIL­LORS AND ELEC­TION OF MAYOR SCHED­ULED FOR JAN 1 WILL BE SUB­JECT TO THE OUT­COME OF THE PE­TI­TION, SAYS HC

the Pun­jab Mu­nic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion Act, 1976 (as ap­pli­ca­ble to Chandi­garh), whereby the vot­ing rights have been con­ferred to nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors and for re­strain­ing them from par­tic­i­pat­ing in the elec­tion to be held on Jan­uary 1, 2012. It was men­tioned that in Sec­tion 4 no cri­te­ria have been laid down with re­gard to nom­i­na­tion of coun­cil­lors and all the ap­point­ments have been sub­jec­tive by us­ing “un­bri­dled” pow­ers by the au­thor­i­ties.

The pe­ti­tioner sub­mit­ted that in the pre­vi­ous for­ma­tion of the cor­po­ra­tion in 2006, the list of nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors was re­leased a day be­fore declar­ing the re­sult of elected coun­cil­lors. Stat­ing the act of declar­ing the nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors this time on De­cem­ber 21, two days af­ter the MC elec­tions re­sults as il­le­gal, the pe­ti­tioner men­tioned that “the same gave a pre­sum­able edge to the rul­ing party at the Cen­tre to pre­pare the list of “nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors” as per their own choice in view of the frac­tured man­date in the MC elec­tions.

It was also al­leged Anoop Sunny Gill was in­clined to­wards the Congress, Dr Am­rit Ti­wari’s son is a sit­ting mem­ber of Par­lia­ment from Congress, DS Sandhu had cam­paigned for a Congress can­di­date in the cor­po­ra­tion elec­tions and Sat Paul Bansal is also be­lieved to have a close as­so­ci­a­tion with the Congress.

The bench was also in­formed that out of 35 coun­cil­lors, 26 are elected and nine nom­i­nated thus, 25% strength of the House is in the hands of nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors. It has also been men­tioned that the ad­min­is­tra­tion should have taken the af­fi­davits of even the nom­i­nated coun­cil­lors in view to check their an­tecedents and cre­den­tials as done in the case of elected coun­cil­lors while fil­ing their nom­i­na­tion pa­pers.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.