Executive Can Act Despite Absence Of Rules If Statute Prescribes Procedure: Gauhati High Court Dismisses PIL Against Deputy Commissioner’s Draw-Of-Lots Reservation Of Itanagar Mayor Post For APST Women
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Pranjal Das, sitting at the Itanagar Permanent Bench, dismissed at the motion stage a public interest litigation challenging the reservation of the Mayor’s post of the Itanagar Municipal Corporation for women belonging to Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes. In doing so, the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision to earmark the office for such candidates by draw of lots was a valid exercise of power under the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019, and that the meeting to elect the Mayor was properly convened. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs 10,000 to the Corporation for disaster management purposes.
The matter originated from a public interest litigation filed challenging the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Region, reserving the post of Mayor of the Itanagar Municipal Corporation for women belonging to the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner alleged that such reservation and the draw of lots were impermissible without a procedure “prescribed” by the Legislature under the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019.
The petitioner contended that the reservation process was undertaken by invoking Section 15(1) instead of Section 53(1) and that the notice convening the meeting was accordingly vitiated. The petitioner further relied on decisions of the Supreme Court concerning compliance with statutory procedure.
The State respondents opposed the PIL, submitting documents including the circular dated 22.10.2025, which contained two parts: reservation of municipal wards and reservation of the Mayor’s post. These documents, including the table at page 7 listing reserved wards and the Mayor’s five-year reserved term for women (APST), were placed before the Court. The State argued that the process was consistent with previous practice, citing earlier Board Proceeding Reports where the Mayor was selected through draw of lots. The State also relied on Supreme Court decisions indicating that the absence of rules does not prevent exercise of statutory power where the Act itself provides the framework.
The Court examined whether the petitioner raised any public interest issue, whether the meeting to elect the Mayor was duly convened, and whether the reservation process required interference. It recorded that “the petitioner is not an elected Councillor” and that no material was placed to show that elected representatives had raised objections. It stated that “the petitioner cannot be said to be raising any issue which can be said to be an issue relating to any public interest.”
On the petitioner’s contention that Section 15(1) was wrongly invoked, the Court noted that the letter dated 22.10.2025 merely conveyed the Government’s decision regarding elections and reservation. Referring to the document reproduced on page 7, the Court stated that Part-B clearly specified “Reserved for Women (APST) under Section 53(1) of APMC Act 2019 r/w Section 1(ii) of APMC (Amendment) Act 2021.” It recorded that “the submission… that reservation has been carved out of incorrect application of law… appears to be wholly misconceived.”
The Court further observed that the petitioner suppressed material facts. It stated that “in an earlier occasion, draw of lots was conducted for appointment to the post of Mayor” and noted the Board Proceeding Report dated 05.03.2020, which determined the Mayor’s tenure through lottery. It recorded that “this fact is totally suppressed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him.”
It held that “the Court is inclined to hold that that decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, to prescribe for reservation of the post of Mayor for Women, cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the provision of proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act and therefore, merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter…If the Act provides for a certain procedure, in the absence of Rules, the action required to be taken by the Executive is not dependent on the framing of Rules or procedure.”
The Bench also recorded that in light of its findings, “there is no material before the Court to hold that the meeting to elect a Mayor… was not duly convened.” It further observed that “the manner in which reservation… does not warrant any examination and/or interference.”
Concluding the observations, the Court stated that the petitioner “has not come to Court with clean hands… Therefore, the Court is inclined to dismiss this PIL on the ground of suppression of material facts.”
The Court held that the petition was liable to be rejected and stated that “this PIL is dismissed at the motion stage, without issuance of notice on the respondents.” It directed that “the petitioner… is ordered to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-… to the Itanagar Municipal Corporation within a period of one month.” The Bench further stated that “failing which, it would be permissible for the Itanagar Municipal Corporation to recover the same in accordance with law.” Upon realization, “the same shall be kept in a fund to be utilized for disaster management purposes.” The sheets of instructions produced by the Senior Government Advocate “is kept as a part of the record.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Pertin, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Tapin, Senior Government Advocate; Ms. N. Anju, Standing Counsel
Case Title: Bharat Cheda v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AP:1298-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 18 (AP) of 2025
Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, Justice Pranjal Das
