Vijay Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Indrawati Bhawan

: Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1,2,3 For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/06/2025

With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction that the Municipal bodies mentioned in para 8.17 of the petition cannot function and their constitution and functioning is unconstitutional by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, orders direction/directions.

10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

Brief facts of the case is that the present writ petition has been filed for the declaration that the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 does not extend to Scheduled-V areas of State of C.G. consequence of which is that no election can be conducted for Municipalities in the Scheduled-V Area and no Municipalities can function in the Scheduled-V Area. Earlier PIL bearing No. 90/2019 was filed by the petitioner himself praying for the relief of declaring/reading down the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 to the extent its apply to the scheduled areas of State of C.G. In that petition Hon’ble Court has categorically held that provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India do not extent to scheduled areas and the petition was dismissed. Later on a writ petition bearing WP (PIL) No. 30/2025 was disposed vide order dated 3

19.02.2025 as withdrawn granting liberty to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Article 243 ZC the Municipal Bodies cannot function in the Scheduled-V areas of Chhattisgarh till date the Parliament of India has not enacted any law extending the provision of Part- IX-A of the Constitution of India to the Scheduled Areas. She further submits that application of C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 to the Scheduled Areas without giving exception and benefits to the Tribal community will violate the fundamental rights of the Scheduled Tribes of C.G. under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned State Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the PIL bearing WP(PIL) No. 90 of 2019 vide order dated 20.06.2023 observing that no Bill has been passed by the Parliament to extend the provisions of Part-IX-A of the Constitution of India to Scheduled areas, the provision of Part- IX A do not extend to Scheduled Areas. Again, the petitioner filed WPPIL No. 30 of 2025 which was again dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

19.02.2025.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Perusal of record shows that the petitioner is claiming that the provisions of Article 243 ZC the Municipal Bodies cannot function 4 in the Scheduled-V areas of Chhattisgarh till date the Parliament of India has not enacted any law extending the provision of Part- IX-A of the Constitution of India to the Scheduled Areas. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench has earlier dismissed the same issue raised by the present petitioner in the petition styled as PIL observing that no Bill has been passed by the Parliament to extend the provisions of Part-IX-A of the Constitution of India to Scheduled areas, the provision of Part-IX A do not extend to Scheduled Areas. When the present petitioner again filed the WPPIL No. 30 of 2025 the query of maintainability was pointed out by the Hon’ble Division Bench but the counsel for the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply as a result of which the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty was given to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. So, now the petitioner has again filed the present petition with the same issue.

This Court observes that the counsel for the petitioner has wrongly assumed the WPC roaster as the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. This Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima