Chennai (PTI): The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu Government not to proceed further with its Ordinance, permitting the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Erode and Tirupur municipalities to continue to hold the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively while upgrading the municipalities as corporations.
Justice P Jyothimani, who issued the direction, said Additional Advocate General P S Raman sought time till December 18 to make his submission.
Hence, the petitions filed by S R Subramaniam of Erode and R Ramasamy of Tirupur, have been posted for hearing on December 19, the judge said.
"It was made clear that till December 19 no further action shall be taken", the judge added.
The petitioners said the November 17 Ordinance upgraded the Erode and Tirupur Municipalities as Corporations. As per Clause 9 (9) of the Ordinance, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of these two municipalities shall be deemed to be the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and they shall continue to hold office till the date notified by the government.
They contended that the Supreme Court has already held that as soon as the upgradation from the Municipality to the Corporation was made the municipality stands dissolved. An Administrator ought to be appointed and that he should hold office until the corporation was succeeded by duly elected office bearers.
But the ordinance appeared to do away with the elections. Hence it was against the Apex Court order.Besides, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor posts were constitutional posts and the state government has no right to appoint them,they added.
Municipality upgrade provision questioned
Ordinance resulted in discontinuation of the elected municipality
Procedure will render democracy and the rule of law a mockery
CHENNAI: The legal validity of a key provision in two Ordinances for the upgrade of the Erode and Tirupur municipalities as Corporations has been questioned in the Madras High Court.
Sub-clause 9 of Clause 9 of Ordinance 6 and 7 provided for the continuation of chairman, vice-chairman and councillors of these municipalities as Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Corporation councillors. They shall be deemed to have been elected to those posts.
The public interest litigation petition challenging the provision was filed by S.R. Subramaniam of Erode and R. Ramasamy of Tirupur.
In his affidavit, Mr. Subramaniam said the action of the authorities designating the chairman and vice-chairman of the Erode municipality as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the newly-formed Corporation was without any legal basis. It was mandatory that an election be held for the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
According to him, the promulgation of the Ordinance resulted in the discontinuation of the elected municipality, and the councillors too ceased to function. Also, the constitution of the new Corporation would result in the change of wards, and reservations should be made for each ward. “In the absence of new territorial limits and new wards, the promulgation of the sub-clause 9 of Clause 9 of the Ordinance is arbitrary, perverse and against the cardinal principles of democracy,” he said.
Mr. Ramasamy assailed the “novel procedure of promoting office-bearers of a municipality without framing laws and demarcation of wards,” and said it would render the democracy and the rule of law a mockery.
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu