In Bombay HC, ex-BMC corporator challenges ordinance reducing number of wards – The Indian Express

Raju Sripad Pednekar, a former corporator belonging to Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), approached the court after the Supreme Court refused to entertain his plea.

He wanted the ordinance to be declared null and void and stayed pending the hearing of his plea. He also wanted the State Election Commission to conduct BMC elections on the basis of delimitation carried as per the Supreme Court orders of May 4 and July 20.

After advocate Joel Carlos, for the petitioner, mentioned the plea before a division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice Kamal R Khata seeking an urgent hearing, the bench posted it to Wednesday.

The MVA cabinet on November 10 last year increased the number of BMC wards to 236. A notification was issued on December 3, on the basis of which the SEC asked the BMC administration to redraw ward boundaries. The delimitation draft was issued on February 1, which received negative reactions from the BJP and the Congress.

On February 21, observing it to be a “politically motivated” PIL petition, the high court dismissed a plea filed by two BJP and MNS workers challenging the draft delimitation notification issued by BMC commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal for the upcoming civic elections.

A division bench led by Justice A A Sayed also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on the two petitioners, Nitesh Rajhans Singh of the BJP and Sagar Kantilal Devre of the MNS. Singh and Devre had challenged the “legality and propriety” of the BMC delimitation notification published on February 1.

After the Supreme Court asked it to proceed with it, the SEC on May 13 published the final notification for delimitation considering 236 wards in the official gazette and submitted a compliance report in the top court on July 8. The new government issued the ordinance on August 8.

Pednekar’s plea claimed the ordinance had “put the clock back” and annulled the Amendment Act whereby the number of BMC wards was increased from 227 to 336. The ordinance said the 2021 census had not been undertaken and therefore the increase was not sustainable.

Pednekar said the high court had observed that the non-completion of the 2021 census would cause no impediment to increasing the number of directly elected councillors and that it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

He also submitted that the work undertaken by the SEC and state machinery for over a year under the supervision of the apex court would become futile if the ordinance was not declared null and void, causing a huge loss to the public exchequer.