CHITTARANJAN GHANSHYAMBHAI BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application challenges amended Rules 9 (2) and 9(4) of the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice -President) Rules, 1964, which came into force by the Gujarat Notification dated 17 -10 -1987. The petitioner came with this Special Civil Application before the election of the President and Vice -President, stating that as per the amended Rule 9 (2), the meeting that will be convened for the purpose of electing the President, will elect the President by show of hands and if that be, it will be against the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. We issued notice to respondents and refused the interim relief on 21 -6 -1989. After notice, it comes up before us. Mr. M. C. Shah, Advocate, appears for the Municipality, the 4th respondent herein. Notice has also been served upon the State of Gujarat. Mr. Amin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, canvass before us that the amendment to Rule 9 (2) as it stands today, is in contravention of Section 19 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Except this contention, Mr. Amin has not put forth any other contention Section 19 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act reads as under :

(2.) It is clear from this Section that the direction to keep secrecy is in respect of those officers, who perform any duty in connection with the recording or counting of votes at an election under the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Rule 9(2) as amended is in respect of recording of the votes. Originally, the unamended Rule 9 (2) stated that the election of the President will be held by ballot. By amended Rule, it states that the President will be elected by show of hands. Thus, it is clear that the right of the voter to elect the President has nothing to do with the direction given in Section 19 for maintaining the secrecy of voting. If that be so we do not find any contravention of Section 19 by amending Rule 9 (2) as it stands today. Since no other contention have been raised except the contention that the amended Rule (2) is in contravention of Section 19, we do not find any substance in this argument and accordingly, this Special Civil Application is dismissed. (RPV) Petition dismissed.