1. One Hasmukhbhai Mavjibhai Vaniya is before this Court. He is an elected member of Bavla Nagar Palika. The petitioner is before this Court contending that when the law, i.e. Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), does not prescribe any specific term for President or Vice President, the term should be taken to be as prescribed by Circular No. NPL/452000/365/M dated 17.12.2002. The said circular is to the effect that on consultation with the Law Department and on interpreting the relevant provisions of law, it is clear that in the enactment, there is no clear provision providing for the specific term of the Vice President of the Nagar Palika and therefore, it should be 'co-extensive with the term of Nagar Palika'. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the contents of this Circular dated 17.12.2002, Resolution No.65 dated 5.3.2008, whereby the term of the Vice President is decided to be two and half years, is illegal and, therefore, the relief, as prayed for, is required to be granted.
2. The relief prayed for in this petition is as under:-
"11(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26/8/2010 issued by the district collector Ahmedabad (respondent No.2) for convening the meeting of the Bavala Nagarpalika for holding election of the Vice President on 4.9.2010;"
3. The very fact that there is no clear provision prescribing the term of the Vice President, in the Act, it was not possible for the Government to prescribe the term by a circular and say that the term of Vice President will be 'co-extensive with the term of Nagar Palika'.
4. But then no relief is required to be granted to the petitioner and without going into various contentions raised by the petitioner, the petition deserves to be thrown out on the ground of delay. Besides this Court is of the opinion that the bonafides of the petitioner are not clear. At the time of passing Resolution No.65, on 5.3.2008, this very petitioner objected to,'term being fixed for the post of Vice President at two and half years'. Not only that, along with two other members, this petitioner voted against the said proposal but then by majority, in the house of 25 members, 22 members voted in favour of fixation of term at two and half years. The term was so fixed. After that, the petitioner did not do anything till filing of the present petition, on 30th August 2010. That gives rise to an inference that this petition is ill-designed and is motivated by extraneous considerations otherwise, if the petitioner had a genuine interest in getting the law settled, he would have taken recourse to the remedy available soon after he was defeated in Resolution No.65 on 5.3.2008.
5. In reply to this observation of delay and doubtful bonafides, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was waiting for the Government to act under sub-section (4) of Section 275 of the Act, which provides as under:-
"Section 275 (4) No bye-law, or alteration or rescission of a bye-law under sub-section (1) shall have effect unless and until it has been sanctioned by the State Government."
6. This provision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. There is no question of any bye-law being altered or rescinded. Even as per the say of the petitioner, there is no specific term provided by the Act and it is by that Circular that the Government declared the term of Vice President to be co-extensive with the term of the Nagar Palika.
6.1. That being so, the moment the petitioner was defeated in Resolution No.65 on 5.3.2008, the petitioner ought to have taken appropriate remedy. To wait for two and half years and then to come to this Court when the term of the Vice President is expiring and a process of electing new Vice President is undertaken, is motivated by extraneous reasons. Only on this ground, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
7. At this juncture, learned advocate for the petitioner requests that the stay granted earlier by this Court be continued for some time. The fact that the Court has found no merits in the matter and further the Court has found the petition itself to be ill-designed and motivated by extraneous reasons, the request is refused.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) omkar Top