BRINDABEN NILANJKUMAR SHUKLA Vs. COLLECTOR MAHISAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Prithvisinh Jadeja waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 3. With the consent of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(3.) The brief facts leading to the rise of this petition, are that the petitioner had contested election of Lunawada Nagar Palika in the year 2018 from Ward No. 1 and was declared elected and Election Certificate dated 19.02.2018 is also issued. The strength of Lunawada Nagar Palika is 27 councillors with one President and as such, total strength of 28 councillors. The term of the President of Lunawada Nagar Palika since was expiring, elections for the post of President was held on 24.08.2020 and the post of President was reserved for woman category and in the meeting held on 24/8/2020, in the hall of Nagar Palika at 11:00 am, 19 councillors voted in favour of the petitioner and 9 councillors voted in favour of Smt. Pritiben Umeshkumar Soni. As a result of this, the petitioner was declared as elected to the post of President of Lunawada Nagar Palika on 24/8/2020 and since then is functioning as such. It is the case of the petitioner that since defeated candidate i.e. Smt. Pritiben Umeshkumar Soni could not digest such defeat, had moved Dispute Application No. 13 of 2020 before the Designated Authority for seeking disqualification of the petitioner under the provisions of Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification of Members of Local Authority for Defection Act, 1986, but since the said challenge is not assumed much significant to the challenge made in present petition, learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya representing the petitioner has not placed much emphasis and as such, leaving aside the said controversy, the case of the petitioner then is that with a view to target the petitioner by rival group, a no confidence motion was moved on 2/1/2021 against the petitioner.