Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 20 February, 1992
Those observations are, however, not inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the case of A. A. Kureshi (supra) because even in that case it is not held that the appointment of administrator was inconsistent with the basic feature of the self Government. In the case of A. A. Kureshi, the Division Bench was concerned with the question as to which out of the two alternatives - one extension of outgoing body and the other appointment of an administrator- should be given priority. In that case the Division Bench held that the Government must consider the alternative of granting extension to an elected body first and if there are valid reasons for not granting such extension it is open to the Government to resort to the provision of appointing administrator. It therefore, cannot be said that the principles laid down in the case of A. A. Kureshi have been diluted in the decision in Special Civil Application No.8204 of 1993. If controversy arises in a case where the elections to a body are postponed beyond its stipulated duration and when there is no constitutional bar, unlike in Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution, and when the statute itself gives the Government two alternatives, the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the case of A. A. Kureshi would continue to apply.