NYAMATKHAN JAMIYATKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner, who is a voter and resident of Kadi town, has challenged the legality and validity of Notification dated 10/12/1991 by which the term of the councillors of the Kadi Municipality has been extended for a period of six months from December 12, 199 1/06/1992 and of the Notification dated 10/06/1992 by which the term is further extended for a period of six months from 12/06/199 2/12/1992 or upto the date of holding the first general meeting of the elected councillors whichever event occurs earlier. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the term of the Councillors of the Municipality has expired on 11/12/1991 and also prayed that the respondents be directed to act in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 263A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) . It is an undisputed position that the general election of Kadi Municipality took place on 16/11/1986 and the first meeting of the councillors was held on 12/12/1986. Thus as per the provisions of Sec. 8(1) of the Act, the term of the councillors elected at the general election was for a period of five years, meaning thereby, the term was to expire on 11/12/1991. The Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat issued a notification dated 4/12/1991 inviting objections against the proposed extension of term of the councillors of the Municipality. The notification inter alia stated that. the State Government was of the opinion that the formation of wards and determining the number of councillors to be elected from each ward should be made in accordance with the population figures of 1991 Census and since it was rot possible to hold elections of the councillors of the Municipality before 11/12/1991, the- Government considered it necessary to extend the term of the councillors of the Municipality for six months or upto the date of holding the first general meeting of the elected councillors whichever event occurs earlier. The said notification is issued under the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 8 of the Act. As required under second proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 8 of the Act, the Government invited objections from the voters and stated that the voters may file objections on or before 9/12/1991. It appears that several voters filed their objections before the stipulated date. The objections were considered by the Government and thereafter on 10/12/1991, the Government issued notification extending the term of the councillors of the Municipality for a period of six months from December 12, 199 1/06/1992 or upto the date of holding the first general meeting of the elected councillors whichever event occurs earlier.

(3.) . The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the action of the Government by filing this petition on 12/12/1991. The petition was entertainable by a single Judge of the High Court. At the time of admission a decision rendered by a single Judge of this Court in the case of Kwnbar Yukub v. Bhuj Municipality, reported in [1991 (2)] XXXII (2) GLR 755 was pointed out. It was considered necessary that the said decision be reconsidered by a Division Bench and hence the matter was referred to Division Bench. This is how the matter is placed before Division Bench.