(1.) The petitioner who are ex-members of the outgoing elected body which was formerly Sihor Nagar Panchayat, now converted into Municipal Borough under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, have preferred this petition praying for setting aside the demarcation of wards made by the Gujarat State Election Commission-respondent No. 2 herein, under the Notification dated 26th October, 1994 at Annexure "A" to the petition. A direction is sought on the respondents to demarcate wards and allocate reserved seats as suggested by the petitioners.
(2.) Sihor Nagar Panchayat was converted into Sihor Nagarpalika by a notification dated 15th April, 1994. As per the last census of 1991, population of Sihor Nagarpalika is 33,255. Nagarpalika was devided into 9 wards and allocated 27 seats by a notification dated 14th October, 1994. This notification was issued by the State Government under Sec. 7(2) of the said Act. The respondent No. 2 published preliminary notification on 26th October, 1994 indicating demarcation of wards and allocation of reserved seats for the Nagar Panchayat. According to the petitioners, there are serious discrepancies in the demarcation of wards made by the Respondent No. 2 and demarcation was done in violation of Rule-3 of the De-limitation of wards and Allocation of reserved seats in Municipal Borough Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). It is contended that instead of maintaining the geographical nearness and the boundaries as per the rules, the Ward No. 1 was demarcated in such a manner that it crosses the Highway. It is also contended that Rule-5 of the said Rules has not been observed in allocation of the reserved seats for backward class female, and that allocation for reserved seats was made without any concurrence of the political parties. It is further contended that written objections which were submitted to the Respondent No. 2 have not been considered and without any application of mind, the Respondent No. 2 has mechnically demarcated the limits of Municipal Borough, without even applying mind to the basic principle of "one man, one vote".
(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the election process would start only when notification declaring election is issued under the Conduct of Election Rules, and therefore, petitioners could not have challenged the limitation of wards by filing an Election Petition under Sec. 14 of the said Act. This submission was made in answer to the Preliminary contention which was raised on behalf of the respondent in context of the provision of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of IndiArt. Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952, SC 64, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that only when the election process starts that the petitioners can be relegated to filing of the election petition under the State Law. It was contended that the word "Election" in Article 243-ZG is not defined in the Constitutional provisions, and therefore, it should have its normal meaning viz., the stage after the election process is started by issuing notification declaring the programme of election. 3.1 Article 243-ZG imposes a bar to interference by Courts in Electoral matters in the following terms :-