AMITBHAI KARSHANBHAI GAMI Vs. FARUKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI MOTLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Respondent No.8 - Authority in respect of proceedings of Application No.14 of 2016.

(2.) The premise on which the present petition is brought before this Court is that in October, 2015, the State Election Commissioner had declared election for 52 seats of Morbi Nagar Palika and pursuant to the said election process, the resolution was declared on 02.12.2015 and out of 52 seats, 32 seats were captured by Indian National Congress whereas 20 seats have been captured by Bhartiya Janta Party.

(3.) Mr.Dhaval C. Dave, learned senior advocate appearing for MR.Aditya Pandya, learned advocate with Mr.Kamal J. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that order passed by the Respondent No.8 authority is passed practically without assigning any cogent reason. Mr.Dave, learned senior advocate has contended that there is a gross irregularity on the part of the respondent - Designating Authority while dealing with the proceedings and such irregular exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be corrected. While submitting this, learned senior advocate has drawn the attention of this Court that during the course of proceedings, the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti has specifically dealt with the mistake committed by the petitioners and appears to have condoned the act of present petitioners along with others by specifically naming in a communication dated 02.01.2018 which is part of the record. Mr.Dave, learned senior advocate has contended further that even the suspension has also been revoked by Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti authorizing the Chairman of Election Committee one Mr.Balubhai Patel, who was authorized to issue whip and as such when party itself has condoned the act of petitioners, there was no other germane reason available with the Designated Authority to pass any contrary order. Mr.Dave, learned senior advocate has further contended and drawn the attention of this Court that this communication was on the contrary produced on record by way of specific affidavit during the course of proceedings before the Designated Authority on 02.02.2018 and as such there was no other valid reason available with the respondent authority to ignore such contention given by the main political party to which present petitioners belong.