Petitioner’s counsel Abhinav Shrivastav submitted that even after the supersession of ULBs after completion of five-year term, the administrators being appointed are functioning beyond the deadline of six months and even more than an year in certain municipalities, amounting to flagrant violation of Article 243-U of the Constitution of India which stipulates that after supersession of the administrator can be appointed for a maximum period of six months and before that elections of ULBs have to be completed mandatorily.
The elections notified for October were held by the Patna high court as illegal and violative of the Supreme Court verdicts which had ordered mandatory ascertainment of political backwardness prior to granting reservations. Now elections are notified on November 30 and the first phase will be on December 18, yet the moot question remains whether the actions done by said administrators of ULB after the lapse of six months time span can legally sustain.
Appreciating the contentions of Abhinav, the division bench observed, “The court would not go into the aspect with regard to the direction for holding elections as the coordinate bench (of Patna high court) is already looking into the matter. Nevertheless, the court would not shy away from considering what has to be done as far as the administrators continuing on their post beyond the time frame as mandated by the Constitution.
The high court sought a reply on this legal question from the state. The matter will be now be heard on December 19.