Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kishorebhai Bachubhai Gamit vs State Election Commission on 27 September, 2018

Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, A.G.Uraizee

           C/SCA/14475/2018                                                         JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  14475 of 2018

 
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 
 
 
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
 
and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
 
======================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4      Whether   this   case   involves   a   substantial   question   of   law   as   to   the 
       interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

======================================
          KISHOREBHAI BACHUBHAI GAMIT
                     Versus
           STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
======================================
Appearance:
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the PETITIONER Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the RESPONDENT No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT No. 2
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the RESPONDENT No. 2
======================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
           and
           HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
 
                                       Date : 27/09/2018
 
                                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) Page 1 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT

1. The   petitioners,   who   are   the   petitioners   in   Special   Civil  Application   No.12027   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil  Application No.12033 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of  2018  pending in this Court, wherein they have challenged the order of  the   competent   authority   dated   11th  June,   2018   rejecting   their  applications raising dispute qua their resignations as councilors of Vyara  Municipality, under Section 35 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipalities Act' for the sake of brevity)  and   during   pendency   thereof,   as   there   is   notification   issued   by   the  respondent no.1 declaring by­election to be held on 07.10.2018, on the  seat which hitherto was held by the present petitioners, on the ground  that the respondent ought not to have shown undue haste in announcing  by­election on the seat when the question of resignation and the decision  of  the  competent  authority   thereon  was  awaiting  its  consideration   by  this Court in the proceedings of  Special Civil Application No.12027 of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of   2018,   Special   Civil  Application   No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12033   of  2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of 2018.   The petitioners  have made the following prayers in this petition;

"(A) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue   Page 2 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of   mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order   or   direction   and   to   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned   declaration   dated   10.09.2018   -  

Annexure­H and press note dated 10.09.2018 -  

Annexure - I, both issued by the respondent no.1  

- State Election Commission, so far as it relates   to holding of by­election of five seats respectively   from ward nos.1 and 5 of Vyara Municipality in   place of the petitioners;

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this   petition, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to stay   the implementation,  execution  and   operation   of  the   impugned   declaration   dated   10.09.2018   -  

Annexure­H and press note dated 10.09.2018 -  

Annexure - I, both issued by the respondent no.1  

- State Election Commission, so far as it relates   to holding of by­election of five seats respectively   from ward nos.1 and 5 of Vyara Municipality in   place of the petitioners;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further   orders as may be deemed fit and proper." 

Thus, essentially what is prayed is that when the petitioners  have   already   approached   this   Court   challenging   the   order   of   the  Collector dated 11th  June 2018, wherein the Competent Authority and  Collector declined to interfere in the resignation acceptance order dated  8th  June   2018   and   not   accepted   the   dispute   qua   resignation   of   the  Page 3 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT petitioners.     The   present   respondent   no.1   State   Election   Commission  ought not to have by­election of Vyara Municipality on the posts said to  have   fallen   on   account   of   factum   of   so­called   resignation   of   the  petitioners. 

2. Facts in brief shorn off unnecessary details could be set out  as under:

2.1 The   petitioners   were   duly   elected   councilors   in   Vyara  Municipality,   which   consists   of   28   councillors.   The   general   elections  were held in the month of October/November, 2015 as per Section 32 of  the   Municipalities   Act.     The   election   of   President   and   Vice­President  were held in view of the amendment under Sections 32 and 33 of the  Act.  The term of the President and Vice­President was coming to an end  and hence the election for those posts were held. As the petitioners were  not inclined to support the prospective candidature of the President and  Vice­President,   they   were   being   intended   to   be   kept   away   and   they  alleged that fake letters of resignations were filed and that resignations  were disputed by the petitioners and they have filed proceedings before  the Collector disputing their resignations.  2.2 The   Collector   and   the   competent   authority   rendered   his  decision on 11th  June 2018 rejecting the contentions of the petitioners,  which gave rise to filing of Special Civil Application No.12027 of 2018,  Page 4 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application  No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12033   of   2018   and  Special   Civil   Application   No.12034   of   2018  by   the   petitioners  challenging   the   decision   of   the   Collector   on   the   grounds   mentioned  thereunder.   In those petitions, the learned Single Judge of this Court  issued notice on 24th  August 2018.  However, no interim relief appears  to have been granted.
2.3 The   concerned   authority   i.e.   Chief   Officer   of   Nagarpalika  intimated the vacancies to the Respondent Election Commission, who in  turn   announced   by­election   on   the   vacancies   which   notification   was  issued on 10th  September 2018, which is subject matter of challenge in  this petition.
3. Learned  counsel   for  the   petitioners   submitted   that  as   per  the   provision   of   Section   35   (5)   and   the   2nd  proviso   thereto,   the  resignation   of   the   councilors   shall   take   effect   in   accordance   with   the  decision of the officer when the resignation aspect is under dispute. The  said provisions deserve to be set out as under:   
"35. Resignation of President, vice­President or   Councillor :­  (1) A President may resign his office   by   tendering   his   resignation   in   writing   to   the   Collector.     Such  resignation   shall   take  effect   from   Page 5 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT the date on which it is accepted by the Collector or   on   the   expiry   of   thirty   days   from   the   date   of   tendering   the   resignation,   whichever   event   occurs   earlier.
 [35(5)              If     any   dispute   regarding   any    resignation arises, it shall be referred for decision to   such   officer   as   the   State   Government   may,   by   general or special order, appoint in that behalf and   decision of such officer shall be final :
Provided that no such dispute shall be entertained   after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the   date of which the resignation took effect :
Provided   further   that   such   resignation   shall   take   effect   in   accordance   with   the   decision   of   such   officer.] 
4. The counsel for the petitioner also invited Court's attention  to Section 42 of the Municipalities Act to indicate as to how and in what  manner the vacancies are to be filled in. The emphasis was laid upon  Section 42 (2), which deserves to be set out as under:
"42. Filling of vacancies :­  (2) On receipt of a notice under sub­section(1),   the   State   Election   Commission   shall   arrange   for   holding   an   election   to   fill   the   vacancy   within   six  Page 6 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT months from the date on which such vacancy  has   arisen.

[Provided, however, that vacancy of a councillor in  any   municipality,   if   any,   existing   on   the   date   of   coming into force of the Gujarat Local Authorities   Laws (Second  Amendment)  Act, 2015  (Guj.  22 of   2015), if could not be filled within such period of six   months, the same shall be filled in at the time of the   general elections if the same are to be held on or   before the 31st  December, 2015 for constituting the   other municipalities whose term are due to expire.]"

There is clear six months' time available to the Respondent  Election   Commission   and   therefore,   when   Election   Commission   had  sufficient   time   to   announce   election,   it   ought   to   have   awaited   the  outcome   of   the   petitions   under   which   the   Collector's   order   is   under  challenge, else all the petitions and the challenge thereunder would be  rendered infructuous.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon decision of  the Supreme Court in case of Election Commission of India Vs. Bajrang   Bahadur   Singh   And   Others,  reported   in  (2015)   12   SCC   570,  with  special emphasis upon paragraph nos.62 and 63, which are set out as  under for ready reference:
Page 7 of 16
C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT "62. The interference of the High Court in exercise   of   the   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   with   the   issuance   of   notification   for   filling   up   of   casual   vacancy in the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh   (Pharenda Constituency) in our opinion arises out of  an   absolute   necessity.     The   election   in   question   is   inextricably   interlinked   with   the   legality   of   the  decision   of   the   Governor   which   resulted   in   the   declaration   of   the   vacancy   in   the   Legislative   Assembly representing Pharenda Constituency.
63. The   decision   of   the   Governor   dated   29th  January 2015 declaring that the petitioner incurred   a disqualification under Section 9­A of the RP Act is   under challenge before the High Court.   That being   the case, there is always a possibility in a given case   that the decision of the Governor could be held to be   unsustainable.     In   the   eventuality   of   such   a   conclusion by the High court, the legislator who is   unseated   consequent   upon   the   decision   of   the   Governor under Article 192 is entitled to continue as   a Member of the legislature if the tenure to which he   is elected still survives.  But in the meanwhile if a by­ election were to be held to fill up the vacancy arising   as a consequence of the decision of the Governor and   in such an election if a person other than unseated   legislator   gets   elected,   there   would   be   a   very  anomalous situation of two persons validly elected to   the same seat in the legislature.   Therefore, in our   Page 8 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT opinion, the case on hand does not fall within the   "blanket   ban   on   the   litigative   challenges   to   the   electoral steps".   The interim order granted by the   High Court is perfectly justified."                     

        (emphasis supplied)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that  pending the  petitions  i.e.  Special Civil  Application  No.12027  of 2018,  Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application  No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12033   of   2018   and  Special Civil Application No.12034 of 2018, cannot contain the present  challenge to the notification, as the challenge to the election notification  or challenge appertaining to election would not fall within the purview  of   the   said   petitions   and   hence   the   present   petition   is   preferred.   He  invited   Court's   attention   to   paragraph   no.67   of   the   decision   of   the  Supreme   Court   in   case   of  Election   Commission   of   India  (supra)  and  submitted that the by­election proceeding can be kept in abeyance and  learned  Single   Judge  may  be   requested  to  hear,  finish,   complete  and  dispose   of  Special   Civil   Application   No.12027   of   2018,   Special   Civil  Application   No.12028   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12030   of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12033   of   2018   and   Special   Civil  Application   No.12034   of   2018,   as   even   the   Division   Bench   in   earlier  matter   also   has   given   six   months'   time.   Paragraph   No.67   of   the   said  judgment is reproduced as under:

Page 9 of 16

C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT    "67. Such proceedings must be heard by a Bench   of at least two Judges and be disposed of within a   period  of  eight weeks from  the  date of  intimation   without fail.   The Chief  Justice of  the High Court   concerned will make an appropriate arrangement in   this   regard.     If   the   abovementioned   time­frame   is   strictly followed, the Commission would still be left   with another eight weeks of time to comply with the   obligations emanating from Section 151­A of the RP   Act."                                         (emphasis supplied)

7. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   also   relied   upon   the  decision rendered by this Court on 23rd  August 2018 passed in Special  Civil Application No.12695 of 2018, copy whereof is produced at page  no.191 of the compilation of this petition, to submit that this Court has  in   somewhat   similar   facts,   stayed   the   notification   announcing   the  election and therefore, in the present case also the petitioners may be  granted   similar   protection   and   the   notification   of   the   election  commission   announcing   the   election   may   be   ordered   to   be   kept   in  abeyance   till   the   decision  is   rendered  in   the  Special   Civil  Application  No.12027 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12028 of 2018, Special  Civil Application No.12030 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12033  of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of 2018 in respect of the  resignations of the petitioners.  

Page 10 of 16

C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT

8. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   Respondent   Election  Commission, under instruction, submitted that the petitions are pending  and   when   the   order   of   the   competent   authority   in   respect   to   the  resignations   of   the   petitioners   are   not   stayed,   there   cannot   be   any  tenable   submission   in   respect   of   any   legality   qua   the   notification   in  question.   The   vacancies   said   to   have   been   arisen   when   the   Collector  passed an order on 11th June, 2018 and that order has to be treated as  final till it is upturned or changed by this Court under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India, else the same is required to be treated as final as  per   provision   of   Section   35   of   the   Municipalities   Act.   The   learned  counsel submitted that having filed the petitions, challenging the order  of   the   competent   authority   in   respect   of   the   resignations   and   having  failed in obtaining any interim orders, that orders cannot be said to have  been  rendered nugatory  in  any manner  and therefore, the  petitioners  could   not   have   been   agitating   before   this   Court   by   this   petition   for  staying   the   operation   and   implementation   of   the   election   notification  and therefore, the matter may be dismissed.

9. Learned AGP, on advance copy, submitted that the petition  is filed challenging the order of the competent authority and Collector  dated   11th  June,   2018   and   in   that   view   of   the   matter,   the   present  petition would not be maintainable and he submitted that the arguments  and submission canvassed on behalf of Election Commission may also be  Page 11 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT treated as part of his submission.

10. On  18th  September  2018,  this  Court  issued  Notice,  which  was made returnable on 25th September 2018.  

11. The   Court   is   of   the   view   that   the   proposition   of   law,   as  sought to be canvassed based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court  in case of  Election Commission of India (supra), deserves to be borne in  mind   and   it   would   surely   govern   the   situation,   but   we   are   of   the  considered view that the order of the competent authority and Collector  under   Section   35(5)   dated   11th  June,   2018   being   not   stayed   in   any  manner   and   when   this   Court   is   examining   the   same   in  Special   Civil  Application   No.12027   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil  Application No.12033 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of  2018, the petitioners cannot be permitted to maintain an independent  petition for challenging notification of by­election, as strictly speaking as  per the Rules and as per the provisions of Sections 35(5) and 42, the  election   commission   was   not   in   any   manner   prevented   or   precluded  from   proceeding   with   the   announcement   of   election,   as   the   order   of  competent authority and Collector had not been stayed by any forum.

12. We hasten to add here that we are not either pronouncing  Page 12 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT or opining or expressing any view in respect of the propriety or conduct  of anyone in this petition. It is also plausible submission that in a given  case   there   could   be   a   discretion   available   to   the   concerned   in   all  propriety await for the outcome of the proceedings in which the order of  the competent authority is under challenge, but we may also not lose  sight of the fact that the High Court has not stayed the order, petitioners  cannot   independently   of   those   proceedings   be   permitted   to   make  submission   in   different   petitions   on   the   ground   that   the   election  commission   ought   not   to   have   announced   by­election   on   the   post   in  question as the order of the competent authority is in fact not disturbed  and   is   operative   and   it   was   always   open   to   the   petitioners   to   seek  appropriate   relief   from   the   Court   in   that   proceedings   of  Special   Civil  Application   No.12027   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12028   of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12030   of   2018,   Special   Civil  Application No.12033 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of  2018 itself and in our view that would have been the most appropriate  remedy   and   methodology   to   obtain   appropriate   order.   The   Court   in  those   proceedings   only   will   have   an   opportunity   and   jurisdiction   to  pronounce upon even a prima facie case qua the order dated 11th June,  2018, which in our view is the point on which the vacancy said to have  occurred.   Therefore,   if   we   look   at   the   order   passed   by   the   Supreme  Court, then   one  can say that,  that  order also  was in  fact of  the  case  Page 13 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT where the original order of disqualification was under challenge before  the Allahabad High Court, where the Allahabad High Court  prima facie  opined about the disqualification order and granted relief so as to see to  it that the proceedings before the Court may not be rendered infructuous  or   nugatory   and   that   order   of   High   Court   was   not   interfered   by   the  Supreme Court.

13. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioners ought to  have   taken   recourse   to   the   proceedings   of  Special   Civil   Application  No.12027 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12028 of 2018, Special  Civil Application No.12030 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12033  of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of 2018 only and ought  to  have  persuaded the  Court  to obtain  some  interim  relief   for  saving  those   proceedings   where   the   order   dated   11th  June   2018   was   under 

challenge and therefore, the present petition in our view would not be  appropriate proceedings which is, in our view, not tenable in eye of law,  as the order under which the petitioners' resignations were said to have  been occurred where the Collector has not accepted the petitioners' say  that the resignations were fake and spurious, the same is operative and  therefore, it cannot be said that the Election Commission was incorrect  in proceeding further with the notification. Again, we hasten to add here  that   it   was   open   to   the   petitioners   to   approach   the   Court   in   the  proceedings of Special Civil Application No.12027 of 2018, Special Civil  Page 14 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT Application   No.12028   of   2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12030   of  2018,   Special   Civil   Application   No.12033   of   2018   and   Special   Civil  Application No.12034 of 2018, itself rather than filing the fresh petition,  as before this Court in this present petition there is not and there cannot  be any challenge to the order dated 11th June, 2018 and as that order is  enuring as on date, we are of the view that the petition does not warrant  any interference.

14. We are of the considered view that the order passed by this  Court in Special Civil Application 12695 of 2018 cannot be of any avail  to the present petitioners as in the said proceedings the Collector  was  still   in   seisen   of   the   matter   and   he   had   not   render   any   decision,  therefore, this Court did pass an order to the effect till the returnable  date, the impugned communication shall remain stayed meaning thereby  no further action being taken so far as the Ward nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 of  Rajpipla Nagarpalika are concerned.  But, as in the present proceedings,  the Collector is not in seisen of any matter and the SCAs preferred by the  present petitioners to challenge the decision dated 11th June 2018 of the  Collector   are   pending   in   this   Court,   wherein   as   we   have   already  observed in foregoing part of this order, the petitioners can very well  obtain appropriate orders in those pending petitions.  

15. As   a   result   thereof,   the   petition   fails   and   is   hereby  Page 15 of 16 C/SCA/14475/2018 JUDGMENT dismissed. It would be open to the petitioners to approach the learned  Single   Judge   in   pending   proceeding   of  Special   Civil   Application  No.12027 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12028 of 2018, Special  Civil Application No.12030 of 2018, Special Civil Application No.12033  of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.12034 of 2018 in respect of the  order, if it is permissible under law, and in that eventuality or in the  proceedings   pending,   our   present   order   may   not   be   in   any   manner  construed as final opinion in respect of the challenge to that order of  Collector or interim order that may be sought. This order may not be  treated as in any manner precluding or concluding any submission of the  petitioners against any interim relief.  Notice discharged.   

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)  (A.G.URAIZEE, J.)  AMAR RATHOD...

Page 16 of 16