Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the vires of the amendment to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
(2.) By the impugned amendment, Section 6 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act has permitted the elected Councillors of the Corporation to appoint any individual as the Mayor subject to such individual getting elected within a period of six months from the date of his initial appointment.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the stand taken by the State in its affidavit. According to him, the State is justifying the impugned amendment on a plea that cannot be accepted. The State's contention that, the election of the person appointed as the Mayor by virtue of the impugned amendment, to a seat of the Corporation, is merely deferred, is without any basis. He has submitted that, deferent of election to the Corporation is neither contemplated nor authorised under Article 243R of the Constitution of India. Such a plea militates against the spirit of Article 243R. It militates against the concept of local self-government by elected representatives, as introduced to the Constitution by the 74th Amendment. A Municipality or a Corporation is governed by the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution of India. Article 243R of the Constitution of India, contemplates governance of a Municipality or a Corporation, as the case may be, by Members who are directly elected to it. The impugned amendment is a deviation from such express provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned amendment is bad in law.;