1992 Supreme(Guj) 45

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :N.J.Pandya, S.B.MAJMUDAR
ABDULGANI ABDULBHAI KURESHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 583 of 1992
Decided On : 02/20/1992

Headnote:

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 –Section 6 (3), 7a – Along with the said challenge are raised alternative contentions centering round applicability of the said provisions to the four municipal Corporations functioning under the Act admission stage of these petitions, by consent of parties, petitions were treated as admitted and were heard finally order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round these questions, it is necessary to glance through a few background fact Four municipal corporations concerned in these petitions are : (1) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (2) Surat Municipal corporation, (3) Baroda Municipal Corporation, and (4) Rajkot Municipal corporation were reconstituted in the under the provisions of the Act. As per Sec. 6 (1) of the Act, terms of office of elected councillors expire at the end of five years if not extended for further period upto one year by the State of Gujarat in exercise of its powers under Sec. 6 (1) subject to following the procedure laid down therein is not in dispute that terms of the councillors of the reconstituted corporations were to expire between five years period would be over since the dates of first meetings of councillors elected in the general elections to these corporations held in is also not in dispute that their terms are not extended uptil now by the State under Sec. 6 (1) for a further period of one year and for that purpose, no procedure under the said provisions has been followed by the State of Gujarat per impugned Sec. 7a of the Act, on expiry of the terms of the councillors, State of Gujarat is enjoined to appoint administrators to take over charge of these corporations and the maximum period for which charge can be taken by the administrators would be two and half years within which elections for reconstituting these corporations have to be undertaken and completed by the State and other authorities under the act –Held, Takes us to the last stage of this proceeding and to the consideration of proper orders to be passed. In the light of our decisions on various points as aforesaid court direct the State of Gujarat to proceed to hold general ward elections in all these four Corporations forthwith on the basis of 1981 Census figures State therefore, shall issue necessary notifications under sees. 5 (2) and (3) in the light of the aforesaid Census figures Court make it clear that this exercise will have to be undertaken by the State afresh because these will be fresh general ward elections. Court direct the State Government accordingly exercise must be completed on or before state Government shall issue suitable instructions to all the Commissioners to see to it that preparation of electoral rolls for all the Corporations is immediately resorted to and thereafter at the earliest election process must be initiated and to ensure that fresh elections for wards of these Corporations are completed latest by the end so that newly elected body of councillors is available to take over reins of office from the out going councillors, in the beginning indicated hereinabove, in the mean time, the outgoing councillors will act as full-fledged councillors discharging all their legitimate functions. State Government will be restrained from resorting to Sec. 7a and from appointing administrators to these corporations during all this time parting court may mention that in view of what we have directed hereinabove, it would not be necessary for us to examine the situation which would have emerged if Sec. 7a was sought to be resorted to by the State after extended period of aggregate six years and we have, therefore, kept that question open learned Advocate General had stated before us during the course of hearing of these petitions that State of its own will not appoint administrators awaiting decision of this Court. When we have rendered our decision as aforesaid, the State will have to be restrained from appointing administrators for all these corporations as aforesaid – Request for stay of operation of this order is therefore, rejected.