The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Article 243E of the Constitution, mandating the completion of Panchayat elections within a specified time, are mandatory and can only be postponed in exceptional circumstances.

F.M. Reis, J.

Heard Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr. S.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel.

3. The above PIL Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to take steps to hold the elections for 185 Village Panchayats in the State of Goa, in terms of law, within the time specified in the relevant provisions of law.

4. Briefly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the elections of 185 Village Panchayats in the State of Goa were held on 16th May, 2012. It is further pointed out that in terms of Article 243E of the Constitution of India, the elections for the new Panchayats have to be held within 5 years of such Panchayats. It is pointed out that the first meetings of all the 185 Village Panchayats were held on 27th May, 2012 and, as such, according to the petitioner, the elections are to be conducted on or before 27th May, 2017. It is further pointed out that the petitioner learnt from the news paper reports that the elections to the Village Panchayats are likely to be held somewhere on 25th June, 2017 which is contrary to the mandate provided in the Constitution and, as such, the petitioner has filed the above petition seeking a direction to the respondents to take all steps to complete the election process within the time stipulated in Article 243E of the Constitution.

5. The respondents have filed their reply, inter alia, contending that somewhere on 4th January, 2017, the State Election Commissioner-respondent No.2 herein sent a letter to the respondent No.3-Director of Panchayats, inter alia, calling upon the respondent No.3 to complete the delimitation and reservation of Wards of the Panchayats to enable the respondent No.2 to proceed to hold the elections and that such process has to be completed on or before 10th February, 2017. It is further contended that in the meanwhile, on 4th January, 2017, the Notification was issued for holding the General Assembly Elections to the State of Goa and in view of the Election Code of Conduct in operation, the respondent No.1 could not take steps to complete the delimitation of the Wards as called upon by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1, at para 8 of its reply has pointed out the specific reasons which necessitated postponing of the elections, which are now scheduled on 17th June, 2017. In the said reply, the respondent No.1 has, inter alia, contended that in view of the Election Code of Conduct which was in operation, they could not take steps to start the work of delimitation. It is further pointed out that the officials of the State Government were preoccupied with the General Assembly Election to the State and as such, there was no sufficient staff to proceed with the work of delimitation of Wards. It is also pointed out that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, suspending sale of liquor within 500 metres from the National and State Highways, the Officials of the State Government were also occupied in identifying such structures at the sites. It is further submitted that it is only after the Election Code of Conduct was lifted in March, 2017 that the respondent could take step to start the work of delimitation of the Wards. It is also pointed out that in view of the ensuing Summer Vacation of the Schools, many of the teachers proceed on vacations and, as such, the elections could not he held within the time prescribed.

6. The respondent No.2 has also filed a reply, inter alia, contending that the work of delimitation of the Wards is in the hands of respondent No.1. It is further pointed out that only after the filing of the above writ petition, the respondent No.2 learnt that the election date was being fixed