( 1 ) ). This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a duly elected Corporator of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, who was also Ex-Mayor of the Corporation to challenge the constitutional validity of Gujarat Local Authorities (Temporary Postponement of Elections and Extension of Term) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Postponement of Election Act"), in so far as it seeks to postpone the General Elections of Councillors of the Corporations in four major metropolis, viz. , Ahmedabad, baroda, Surat and Rajkot. Though in the main petition, a prayer for issuance of writ was made to declare the entire Postponement of Elections Act, 1993 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and for quashing and setting aside the said enactment, it must be stated that at the hearing of this petition, challenge was confined to Sec. 3 (a) of the said Act. It must also be stated that though no specific relief was prayed for holding election of the Councillors of the said Corporations, as a relief consequential to the main relief, in the course of submission, it was also prayed that directions must be issued to the respondents and more particularly to the Commissioners of respective corporations being respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to hold elections of the Councillors at the earliest.

( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate the challenge to the constitutionality of the postponement of Elections Act, 1993, it will be necessary to refer chronologically to the facts and circumstances, which have given rise to the enactment of the Postponement of Elections Act and consequently to the present petition. The relevant Facts are as under : (I) Four Municipal Corporations, viz. , Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, surat Municipal Corporation, Baroda Municipal Corporation and Rajkot municipal Corporation were reconstituted after General Elections of the councillors in the month of February, 1987 under the provisions of the bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act ). Under Sec. 6 (1) of the Principal Act, terms of office of the elected Councillors would expire at the end of the fifth year if not extended for a further period upto one year by the state of Gujarat. It is an admitted fact that terms of the Councillors of reconstituted Corporations were to expire between 6th and 1 2/02/1992. as the period of five years from the date of the first meeting of the Councillors would expire between those dates. The terms of the Councillors were not extended by the State Government under sec. 6 (1) for the further period of one year. Under Sec. 7 (A) of the principal Act, on expiry of the terms of the Councillors, the State of gujarat had power to appoint Administrators to take over charge of the corporations. Since the State Government had admittedly not taken any action for extending the term of the aforesaid Corporations and since it was apprehended that the Administrators might be appointed under sec. 7 (A) of the Principal Act, a group of petitions being Special Civil applications No. 583 to 588 of 1992 came to be filed in this Court inter alia challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 7 (A) of the Principal act and also for a writ of mandamus against the concerned authorities, calling upon them to initiate process of election for reconstituting the aforesaid four Corporations and to extend the terms of the Councillors in the meantime. (II) Such group of petitions came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of S. B. Majmudar, Acting Chief Justice and N. J. Pandya, J. on 20/02/1992. The said decision of the Division bench in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992 (1) GLR 503, the Division Bench directed the State of Gujarat to proceed to hold General Board Elections in all the four corporations forthwith on the basis of 1981 Census figures. The State of Gujarat was also directed to issue necessary Notifications under Sec. 5 (