While dismissing a PIL challenging a letter of the Deputy Commissioner by which the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was reserved for women, the Gauhati High Court has held that merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, it would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter issued to announce the reservation of the post of Mayor.

The Public Interest Litigation was filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar, by which the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was reserved for women. A direction was also sought to the State Election Commission to conduct the election for the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation without reserving the post for women.

The Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Pranjal Das thus held, “Thus, from the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of case of Surinder Singh (supra) and Sonvir (supra), the Court is inclined to hold that that decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, to prescribe for reservation of the post of Mayor for Women, cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the provision of proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act and therefore, merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter bearing Memo No. DC/Capital/Election-01/ Municipal/2025 dated 22.10.2025 (Annexure-6), issued by the AC (Election), for Deputy Commissioner, Capital, Itanagar, amongst others, to announce reservation of the post of Mayor, Itanagar Municipal Board for women.”

Advocate T. Pertin represented the Petitioner while Senior Government Advocate S. Tapin represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019, prescribes that the post of Mayor can only be reserved for Scheduled Tribes by rotation or by drawing of lots only in the manner prescribed. As per the Petitioner, it was not permissible for the Deputy Commissioner to have the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation reserved for women and filled up by draw of lots at his own volition.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner was not an elected Councillor and had not brought on record any material from which it could be gathered that any grievance was raised by any of the elected Councillors, complaining that the manner in which reservation of women for the post of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was made, or regarding the manner in which the Mayor was elected. “However, the petitioner has not brought any material on record that the elected Councillors had questioned the same in a manner envisaged under the law applicable for them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be raising any issue which can be said to be an issue relating to any public interest”, it held.

The Bench next dealt with the grievance of the petitioner that the notice convening the meeting was issued under Section 15(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and not under Section 53 (1) as required by the said Act. The Bench explained that the reservation for the post of Mayor was inconsonance with the Proviso to Section 15(1) of the 2019 Act. The petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court that the reservation of the post of Mayor for Women was contrary to the provisions of Article 243-T (4) of the Constitution of India.

The Bench referred to the judgment in Sonvir @ Somvir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) wherein it has been held that unless Rules are framed, the power conferred under the Act cannot be exercised, will not be in consonance with the very purpose for which Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 was enacted. “The said observation would mean that the purpose of the Act cannot be frustrated merely because Rules has not been framed”, it added.

The Bench concluded that there was no material before the Court to hold that the meeting to elect a Mayor for the Itanagar Municipal Corporation was not duly convened. It was further noticed that the petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands by disclosing all material facts and for concealing the fact that on an earlier occasion, vide Board Proceeding Report of 2020, the result of the election of Mayor of Itanagar Municipal Corporation was declared by draw of lots.“Therefore, the Court is inclined to dismiss this PIL on the ground of suppression of material facts with intent to conceal material fact from this Court”, it held.

The Bench thus dismissed the PIL at the motion stage and ordered the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs 10,000 to the Itanagar Municipal Corporation within a period of one month.

Cause Title: Bharat Cheda v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation:2025:GAU-AP:1298-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate T. Pertin

Respondent: Senior Govt. Advocate S. Tapin, Advocate N. Anju

Click here to read/download Order


Gauhati High CourtJustice Kalyan Rai SuranaJustice Pranjal Das

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.