Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed the State Election Commission to issue a specific letter to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, clearly specifying the information or documents required for holding the election of the Committee for Metropolitan Planning. The court further directed that upon receiving such a letter, the Principal Secretary must provide the requested information within two weeks. The court also ordered that in the event of non-compliance, the Joint State Election Commissioner and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, must appear in person before the court to explain the lack of coordination. The matter is to be listed among the top ten cases on 29 August 2025.

The petitioners are residents of Allahabad, now Prayagraj. They referred to a notification dated 30 November 2006 issued under clause (c) of Article 243-P of the Constitution read with Clause (45-A) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1959), by which the Allahabad Metropolitan area was notified for the purposes of Part IX-A of the Constitution. Subsequently, to constitute a Committee for metropolitan planning as provided under Article 243-ZE of the Constitution and Section 57-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, the Governor notified the Uttar Pradesh Metropolitan Planning Committee (Regulation of Procedure and Execution of its Functions) Rules, 2011. Under Rule 7, the State Election Commission was given powers of superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections for the Chairperson and members of the Committee.

Also Read: “A Society Engaged in Charitable Work Holds the Character of a Constructive Trust”: Supreme Court Says Registration Under Societies Act Doesn’t Diminish Public Trust Nature

By another notification dated 22 May 2014, the strength of the Metropolitan Planning Committee for the metropolitan area was fixed at thirty members. On 29 January 2015, the State Government requested the State Election Commission to initiate proceedings for constitution of the Metropolitan Planning Committee. In a Public Interest Litigation No. 4735 of 2016, the court, after considering the State Government's letter, directed the Election Commission to take steps to constitute the Committee expeditiously.

The petitioners contended that despite nearly five years passing since that direction, no steps had been taken by the State Election Commission to constitute the Committee. They alleged this amounted to a complete abdication of duty and responsibility conferred on the respondent by the Constitution and statutes.

On 8 September 2021, the court granted two weeks' time to the State and the State Election Commission to file affidavits explaining why the Metropolitan Planning Committee for the notified metropolitan area had not been constituted. Subsequently, a short counter affidavit was filed by the State Election Commission (respondent no. 6) and another affidavit by respondents no. 1 and 2.

The court noted that both affidavits reflected a shifting of responsibility between the State Government and the State Election Commission for not holding the elections. Counsel for the State Election Commission submitted that a letter dated 27 August 2024 had been sent to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, seeking certain information for holding the elections. However, the court observed that the letter was vague and failed to specify the exact information or documents required.

The court recorded that due to the lack of specificity in the State Election Commission's request, the State Government could not provide the necessary information. Counsel for the State Election Commission then submitted that a fresh, detailed letter specifying the requirements would be issued within ten days.

The court observed: "Perusal of the short counter affidavit as well as the affidavit reflects that both are shifting the burden upon one and other for not holding the election of the Committee for Metropolitan Planning as provided under Article 243-ZE of the Constitution of India and Section 57-A of the U.P. Act No. 2 of 1959."

Regarding the 27 August 2024 letter, the court stated: "Perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 27.08.2024 discloses that the letter is vague and does not describe as to what information/document is needed by the State Election Commission to hold the election of the Committee for Metropolitan Planning. When the letter of the State Election Commission is not specific, the State Government cannot give the information which is sought by the State Election Commission."

The court recorded the submission from counsel for the State Election Commission: "The State Election Commission shall issue a fresh letter within a period of ten days from today to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of UP, Lucknow specifying the requirement which is needed by the State Election Commission to hold the election of the Committee for Metropolitan Planning."

The court directed that the State Election Commissioner must issue a letter within ten days to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, specifying the exact information or documents required for holding the election of the Committee for Metropolitan Planning. The Principal Secretary must then supply the requested information within two weeks of receiving the letter.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Slams UP Govt for ‘Vexatious’ Dowry Death Appeal, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation to Man with ‘Honourable Acquittal’

The court further directed that if these directions are not complied with, the Joint State Election Commissioner and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, must appear before the court on the next date to explain the lack of coordination in holding the election, which is a constitutional mandate under Article 243-ZE of the Constitution.

Additionally, if the State Election Commissioner finds that all the required information has been provided, the Joint Election Commissioner must file a personal affidavit indicating the timeline within which the election will be held.

The matter was ordered to be listed among the top ten cases on 29 August 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Narendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Sudha Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondents: C.S.C., Advocate; Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate; Tarun Agrawal, Advocate

Case Title: Kamlesh Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 12386 of 2018

Bench: Justice Saral Srivastava, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal