74th Amendment | State Cannot Usurp Municipal Autonomy by Deputing Ineligible Engineers as Town Planners: Jharkhand High Court

“It is nothing but fraud upon the Statute and the Constitution... Once the statute has been finalized and approved by the Assembly and assented by the Governor, it is not available for any individual, including the Minister or Chief Minister, to come in the way of proper execution.” — In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, has restrained ineligible engineers deputed by the State Government from functioning as Town Planners in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), terming the State's interference a violation of the constitutional autonomy of Urban Local Bodies.

The Constitutional Crisis: Betrayal of the 74th Amendment

In a stinging rebuke to the State machinery, the High Court held that the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, was enacted to grant autonomy to Municipalities as vibrant units of self-government. The Court observed that the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, was framed to conform to this mandate. However, the Court found that the State Government, through the Urban Development Department, was directly interfering in the internal affairs of the RMC by deputing engineers from other departments to act as "Town Planners," despite them lacking the requisite statutory qualifications.

The Bench remarked that such interference frustrates the very purpose of the 74th Amendment. The Court rejected the State's submission that the "opinion of the concerned Minister" was required to rectify the situation, stating that once a law is enacted, executive authorities cannot stall its implementation.

“The Constitutional mandate as per 74th amendment is only to achieve the object to provide autonomy to the urban local bodies without any interference of the State.”

Ineligible ‘Town Planners’ and the Nullity of Map Sanctions

The core controversy arose from the fact that the RMC was utilizing the services of deputed Civil Engineers as Town Planners, while regularly appointed Assistant Town Planners (ATPs)—who possessed the mandatory Master’s Degree in Planning—were sidelined and not assigned duties.

The Court found that the deputed engineers did not possess the Master’s Degree in Planning or Associate Membership of the Institute of Town Planners, as required by the recruitment rules. Consequently, the Court held that allowing ineligible persons to participate in the map sanctioning process renders their decisions null and void. The Bench expressed deep concern for the public, noting that maps sanctioned by unauthorized personnel could lead to a "miscarriage of justice" for citizens who take loans to build homes, only to face legal uncertainty later.

“If the map which is being sanctioned itself goes to the nullity then for what fault the general people who are purchasing/constructing homes... is made to suffer.”

Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statute

The State attempted to justify the Town Planners' authority to sanction maps up to two storeys based on a departmental "Flow Chart." The Court summarily rejected this, holding that Sections 427 and 429 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, vest the power to sanction maps in the Municipal Commissioner or Executive Officer.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated the legal maxim that executive instructions cannot supplant statutory provisions. The Court termed the reliance on a flow chart to bypass statutory authority as a "fraud upon the Statute." The Bench emphasized that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

“Executive instructions or flow charts cannot override or supplant statutory provisions... Any action taken contrary to the prescribed statutory manner is a nullity in the eye of law.”

Judicial Duty vs. Administrative Apathy

The Court also addressed the issue of contempt, noting that the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, appeared to be obstructing the implementation of an undertaking given by the RMC Administrator to utilize the services of regular ATPs. While the Court issued notice for contempt, it prioritized exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent ongoing illegality.

Refusing to remain a silent spectator, the Court asserted that judicial restraint does not equate to judicial abdication. When the State commits gross illegality at the cost of the public interest, the Court has a solemn duty to intervene.

The High Court disposed of the appeal with the following binding directions:

1. Restraint Order: The two ineligible engineers deputed as Town Planners are immediately restrained from discharging duties.

2. Repatriation: The State Government is directed to repatriate these engineers to their parent departments.

3. Mandate for ATPs: The regularly appointed Assistant Town Planners must be allowed to discharge their statutory duties immediately to ensure the work of the RMC is not hampered.

Date of Decision: 12/12/2025