The Times of India 18.09.2009
HC wants municipal corporation for Gandhinagar
AHMEDABAD: Forty-five years after its foundation, the state capital will have a transition from bureaucracy to democracy as far as its management is concerned. The Gujarat High Court on Thursday directed the reluctant state government to form a municipal corporation for Gandhinagar so that the city could have its own elected body to manage civic affairs.
Despite proposals as well as studies conducted after visiting cities like Chandigarh, in a bid to form a local elected body for Gandhinagar, the state government has not declared it a municipal corporation. In 2007, a local organisation Gandhinagar Jagruk Nagrik Parishad (GJNP) filed a PIL in the high court, demanding municipal corporation status for the capital. GJNP lawyer, Jayant Bhatt argued that assigning corporation status to the city is a constitutional obligation for the state government ever since an amendment in Article 243Q of the Constitution in 1993. The city has a population of over 2 lakh spread over an area of 56.73 sq km.
The state government continued to argue that it is a legislative issue and the citizens are happy with the Gandhinagar Notified Area Committee, thus need for an elected body was never felt. Advocate general Kamal Trivedi also stated, "On formation of a municipal corporation at Gandhinagar, unnecessarily people would be subjected to local taxes, which may be a burden to them since most of the inhabitants in and around Gandhinagar are government employees."
This invited court's wrath on the government. Asking it to complete formalities of forming a municipal corporation at the state capital, the division bench of Chief Justice KS Radhakrishanan and Justice Akil Kureshi observed, "By not forming the municipal corporation, the constitutional requirement has been given a complete go-by. State government cannot shirk its responsibility in enforcing the constitutional obligations and duties cast upon it."
Dubbing the government's contentions as "flimsy and irrational", the judges noted, "If statutory requirements and constitutional requirements are not complied with, it is the bounden duty of a constitutional court to direct the government to implement those constitutional requirements. Failure to do so by constitutional court will be failure to uphold the constitution and the laws."
Moreover, the court criticized the state government on this issue in harsh words, "Disobedience to the constitutional mandate is the disobedience to the constitution itself...constitutional court has a duty to alert the state government of its disobedience. We have noticed that initial enthusiasm to uphold the constitutional mandate subsided later due to certain unknown reasons and time is running out for the state, and if violation persists, it may lead to constitutional breakdown with disastrous consequences."
Despite proposals as well as studies conducted after visiting cities like Chandigarh, in a bid to form a local elected body for Gandhinagar, the state government has not declared it a municipal corporation. In 2007, a local organisation Gandhinagar Jagruk Nagrik Parishad (GJNP) filed a PIL in the high court, demanding municipal corporation status for the capital. GJNP lawyer, Jayant Bhatt argued that assigning corporation status to the city is a constitutional obligation for the state government ever since an amendment in Article 243Q of the Constitution in 1993. The city has a population of over 2 lakh spread over an area of 56.73 sq km.
The state government continued to argue that it is a legislative issue and the citizens are happy with the Gandhinagar Notified Area Committee, thus need for an elected body was never felt. Advocate general Kamal Trivedi also stated, "On formation of a municipal corporation at Gandhinagar, unnecessarily people would be subjected to local taxes, which may be a burden to them since most of the inhabitants in and around Gandhinagar are government employees."
This invited court's wrath on the government. Asking it to complete formalities of forming a municipal corporation at the state capital, the division bench of Chief Justice KS Radhakrishanan and Justice Akil Kureshi observed, "By not forming the municipal corporation, the constitutional requirement has been given a complete go-by. State government cannot shirk its responsibility in enforcing the constitutional obligations and duties cast upon it."
Dubbing the government's contentions as "flimsy and irrational", the judges noted, "If statutory requirements and constitutional requirements are not complied with, it is the bounden duty of a constitutional court to direct the government to implement those constitutional requirements. Failure to do so by constitutional court will be failure to uphold the constitution and the laws."
Moreover, the court criticized the state government on this issue in harsh words, "Disobedience to the constitutional mandate is the disobedience to the constitution itself...constitutional court has a duty to alert the state government of its disobedience. We have noticed that initial enthusiasm to uphold the constitutional mandate subsided later due to certain unknown reasons and time is running out for the state, and if violation persists, it may lead to constitutional breakdown with disastrous consequences."
