Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.15972 and 18730 of 2016, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved in both the petitions are common. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.15972 of 2016.
(2.) In CWP No.15972 of 2016, the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents to hold elections of Pradhan, Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (in short, "the Act") which provides that every election of the President shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and Rule 70 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (in short, "the Rules"). Direction has also been sought to the respondents to hold elections of the Pradhan, Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar within 48 hours as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and Rule 70 of the Rules. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents not to allow Member of Parliament/Member of Legislative Assembly (MP/MLA), Bahadurgarh constituency to exercise their vote in the elections to the post of Pradhan, Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh in view of the law laid down by this Court in LPA No.592 of 2013, Sanjeev Kumar Verma v. Director, Local Bodies, Chandigarh, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 991 decided on 11.02.2015 . The petitioners further pray that the respondents be directed to keep the votes of the MP/MLA separate and not to count the same in the elections and if a candidate gets majority without considering their votes with a margin of three, then the result be declared forthwith. However, in CWP No.18730 of 2016, additionally, it has been urged that after the constitution of new Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh in the absence of any subsequent notification whereby MP/MLA have been notified to have voting rights, the earlier notification having lapsed, the writ petition is liable to be accepted.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioners are residents of Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. They have been elected as members of the Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh and have also been administered the oath for the same on 22.5.2016. As per the case of the petitioners, earlier the election was held on 13.11.2009 and the oath was taken on 16.12.2009. The Pradhan was elected on 11.1.2010. Now the elections have been held on 22.5.2016 and oath was given on 24.6.2016. The election for the President, Nagar Parishad was fixed on 22.5.2016. One of the petitioners i.e. Monika wife of Kapoor Rathee resident of Ward No.15, Jatwara Mohalla, Bahadurgarh filed CWP No.14404 of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 3 to 6 not to allow Member of Parliament from Rohtak and MLA, Bahadurgarh to exercise their vote in the election for the post of Pradhan Nagar Parishad, Bahadurgarh in view of the provisions of Article 243R of the Constitution of India, Section 9 of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Verma's case (supra). The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court. Vide order dated 22.7.2016, it was directed that the respondents shall keep the votes cast by the MLA and MP in a separate sealed cover and produce the same in court on the next date of hearing. However, the declaration of result shall be subject to further order to be passed by this court. Vide order dated 27.7.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the election which was scheduled for 22.7.2016 had not been conducted. In view thereof, the said writ petition had been rendered infructuous and was disposed of as such. According to the petitioners, the ruling party BJP had no majority and they had only six members. They were bent upon not to hold election. The Administrator had been appointed for the last one and a half years which was hampering the development of the area and smooth running and functioning of the Nagar Parishad. The ruling party was bent upon to influence the members of the Municipal Council and they were doing day and night work to persuade the members of the Nagar Parishad to come to their side and increase the majority but all the members except six which belonged to BJP were not coming to the side of BJP. Therefore, the ruling party was not holding the elections of the Pradhan Nagar Parishad.;