http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  9444 of 2003

PETITIONER: Suresh Seth                                                      

RESPONDENT: Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation and others                                                 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/2005

BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

G.P. Mathur, J.

       This appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the  judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh  by which the Civil Revision filed by Bhanu Kumar Jain was  dismissed. 2.      The election for the Office of Mayor, Municipal Corporation of  Indore, was notified on 25.11.1999.  The election was held on  27.12.1999 and the result was declared on 3.1.2000 wherein Shri  Kailash Vijayvargiya, respondent No. 3, was elected as Mayor.  One  Bhanu Kumar Jain filed an election petition challenging the election  of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya as Mayor on several grounds and the  principal ground taken was that he being a sitting member of the  Legislative Assembly, was disqualified for holding the Office of  Mayor of a corporation under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act,  1956.  The election petition was dismissed by the XII Additional  District Judge, Indore, by the judgment and order dated 11.4.2002.   Bhanu Kumar Jain then filed a civil revision under Section 441-F of  the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in the High Court, which  was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003, which  is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal. 3.      The term of a Mayor under the M.P. Municipal Corporation  Act, 1956 is five years and it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for  the appellant that the term of Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya has already  come to an end.  In these circumstances, no effective relief can be  granted in the present appeal and the same has become infructuous by  passage of time. 4.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a direction  be issued that an election petition challenging the election of a  returned candidate should be decided expeditiously by the trial court  and the revision petition preferred in the High Court should also be  disposed of as expeditiously as possible.  The appellant has not filed  copy of the order sheet of the trial court or of the High Court, which  could give some indication as to who is responsible for the delay in  the final disposal of the matter.  Even the judgment of the trial court  has not been filed along with the special leave petition.  In absence of  complete material having been placed on record, it will not be proper  for us to issue any direction in this regard. 5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that this  Court should issue directions for an appropriate amendment in the  M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be  debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely  that of a member of the Legislative Assembly and also of Mayor of a  Municipal Corporation.  In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for  the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

regard can be issued by the court.  That apart this Court cannot issue  any direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of  enactment.  Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and  Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws and no  outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular  piece of legislation.  In Supreme Court Employees Welfare  Association vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (para 51) it has been  held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law.   Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power  by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority  of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a  law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated  legislative authority.  This view has been reiterated in State of J & K  vs. A.R. Zakki 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 548.  In A.K. Roy vs. Union of  India (1982) 1 SCC 271, it was held that no mandamus can be issued  to enforce an Act which has been passed by the legislature.   Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the  appellant cannot be accepted. 6.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.