The Hindu : SC adjourns hearing in 'one man, one post' case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 11, 2002

National

National

SC adjourns hearing in 'one man, one post' case

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI DEC. 10. The Supreme Court has adjourned to January 6, 2003, a special leave petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against a judgment of the Madras High Court quashing the `one-man-one-post' legislation by which the Chennai Mayor, M.K. Stalin, was unseated on the ground that he was holding the post of an MLA.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice, G.B. Pattanaik, and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan adjourned the proceedings on Monday following a request from counsel for the Tamil Nadu Government.

Meanwhile V.G. Pragasam, counsel for Mr. Stalin, has filed a special leave petition challenging the common High Court order, dated September 6, holding that Mr. Stalin was ineligible to contest for the post of Mayor for the second time in terms of Sec. 30 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (CCMC) Act.

This petition will come up for hearing in the next few days.

In its SLP, the Tamil Nadu Government said that the High Court while quashing the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002, had erred in holding that the State Government could not meddle with the post of Mayor, otherwise than by the constitutional method.

The High Court had erred in holding that the petitioner, S. Udhayakumar, had locus standi to file a public interest petition even as Mr. Stalin, who was the affected person, chose not to challenge the Act.

Pointing out that in view of this judgment, the Government was unable to take any decision with regard to persons holding more than one post and was deprived of its objects of implementing `one-man-one-post', the SLP prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and interim stay of its operation.

In his SLP, Mr. Stalin contended that the High Court ought to have seen that the bar in Sec. 30 of the CCMC Act, making an outgoing Mayor or Deputy Mayor ineligible for re-election, was only applicable to the term of two years, which was prescribed in the CCMC Act prior to the 73rd Constitution Amendment.

He said after the 73rd amendment, the term of the Mayor had been extended to five years and as such the bar could not be made applicable. Mr. Stalin contended that under the 73rd amendment, the constitutionality of municipality including the Mayor's post and tenure thereof were governed by the Constitution and not by the CCMC Act.

He also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner, K. Sridhar Kumar, had no locus standi to file a writ petition as only an election petition could be filed to challenge the election of a Mayor.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National