IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2317 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7330 of 2012
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Sd/-
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 & 2 YES; 3 to 5 NO =========================================================
BHARWAD VIRJIBHAI GOKULBHAI - Petitioner
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THRO & 3 -Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR MM SAIYED and MR BM MANGUKIYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, MR RAKESH R PATEL ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3, MR SP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) : 4, =========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 03/08 /2012
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The petitioner in SCA No.2317 of 2012 is aggrieved by order dated 18.8.2011 of Specified Officer of Sanjali Gram Panchayat and Mamlatdar, Ankleshwar, whereby names of 161 voters appearing in the voters' list for election of State Legislative Assembly have been removed from the voters' list of Sanjali Gram Panchayat on account of the fact that the area in which those voters were residing was acquired by and for the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The petitioner has also challenged order dated 01.02.2012 of the Collector and District Election Officer, Bharuch, whereby representation of the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected on the basis that those 161 voters were illegally residing in the area (lands bearing survey No.177) which has been sold to GIDC for industrial estate which, in turn, is included in the notified area excluded from the limits of village Sanjali. The other petition, being SCA No.7330 of 2012, is filed by four residents of village Sanjali with the prayers to set aside decision if any, taken to include names of the persons residing in Panoli notified area in the list of voters of Sanjali Gram Panchayat. Thus, the petitions are practically cross-petitions and, therefore, heard and disposed together by this judgment.
2. The case of the petitioner of the first petition is that he alongwith 160 other voters are settled or roaming around village Sanjali and having their make-shift houses on the land hearing survey No.177, which was acquired for GIDC, Panoli in the year 1998, but their names appeared in all elections as voters of village Sanjali till the impugned order dated 18.8.2011 was issued. It was submitted for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the Specified Officer in exercise of his powers under section 20 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), even as the names of 161 voters continued to appear in the electoral roll for the State Legislative Assembly for village Sanjali. It was submitted that the power for revision of electoral rolls for any legislative assembly constituency is only with the Election Commission under section 21 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short, “ROP Act of 1950”) and, as long as such power is not exercised by the Election Commission, Mamlatdar could not legally delete names of the voters concerned. Relying upon judgment of this Court in Bashir Adamji v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2007 GUJ 161], it was submitted that amendment of list of voters for the purpose of deleting names of the persons already including in the electoral roll published for election to the State Legislative Assembly can be entertained only on the ground that the list in question is at variance with the list of voters published for the State Legislative Assembly elections; and such names included in the electoral division cannot be deleted under sub-section (3) or sub-section (6) of section 20 of the Act without following the procedure prescribed under section 22 of ROP Act of 1950. It was further submitted that any alteration of limit of village pre-supposes publication of notification under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution and only notification dated 10.9.1998 issued under section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 (for short, “GID Act of 1962”) could not be treated as a notification under Article 243-Q of the Constitution. Learned counsel Mr.M.M.Saiyed, appearing for the petitioner, also relied upon judgment of the Bombay High Court in BIMA Office Premises Co-operative Society v. Kalamboli Village Panchayat [AIR 2001 BOM. 83] to submit that inclusion within or exclusion from any village of that area could only be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayats Act. Thus, the challenge to deletion of names from the voters' list of the panchayat has been extended to challenging alteration of limits of village Sanjali, whereby certain local area is excluded from limits of the village.
3. By filing an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4, Secretary of Sanjali Gram Panchayat, it is stated that notification dated 10.9.1998, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the GID Act of 1962 is not under challenge. In the earlier round of proceeding, being SCA No.17421 of 2011, the Specified Officer had filed an affidavit which clearly demonstrated that the case of the petitioner was unjustified. It was stated in that affidavit:
“6. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R.2 is a copy of the Resolution of Sanjali Gram Panchayat. According to this Resolution, as survey No.177 has been included in GIDC, Panoli, it is no more a part of Sanjali Gram Panchayat and hence it was decided to have this as not being considered as a part of Sanjali Gram Panchayat ”
By filing an affidavit of Mamlatdar, Ankleshwar, on behalf of respondent No.2, it is stated that all 161 voters were residing in the area which falls within the GIDC Estate at Panoli, which is included in the notified area and hence they could not be said to be residents of Sanjali Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that by virtue of order dated 20.12.2011 of Division Bench of this Court, the Collector and District Election Officer, Bharuch has made appropriate order after giving full opportunity to all concerned and concluded that all concerned persons, except 41 voters, were not residents of Sanjali Gram Panchayat. Unfortunately, proper full and legible copies of the notifications dated 10.9.1998 and 11.9.1998 issued by Industries and Mines Department of the State Government are not annexed and only unreadable and incomplete photocopies of the Gujarat Government Gazette (Extraordinary) of those dates are annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-R.1.
3.1 It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Niral R.Mehta, appearing for the State Election Commission, that right to contest or vote at an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right and it is always subject to the limitations imposed by the statute. He submitted that preparation of voters list, objections, finalizing the voters list etc. are part and parcel of election process and any kind of dispute about the voters' list could not be agitated in a writ petition in view of the alternative appropriate remedy in the form of an election petition, provided under section 31 of the Act. He also submitted that survey No.177 of village Sanjali, admeasuring approximately 16,168 sq. mtrs. running under the head of “Government Land”, came to be excluded and included in the notified area of Panoli industrial area vide notification dated 10.9.1998 published by the Department of Industries and Mines under section 16 of the GID Act of 1962 and it was in terms stated in the notification that the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 shall cease to be applicable to the area included in Panoli industrial estate. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 20 and section 16 read with section 6 of the Act, name of the petitioner and others could not be included in the voters' list of Sanjali Gram Panchayat and have rightly been deleted.
4. Learned counsel Mr.Mangukiya, appearing for the petitioners in SCA No.7330 of 2012, relied upon judgment dated 17.9.2009 of Division Bench of this Court in SCA No.30145 of 2007 in Gandhinagar Saher Jagrut Nagrik Parishad v. State of Gujarat and decision of the Apex Court in Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1999 SC 826], with emphasis on the following averments made in the petition:
“8. The petitioners state that the State Government acquired about 959 survey numbers for constitution of industrial township known as Panoli Industrial Area. The survey No.177 of village Sanjali has been acquired. 13 survey numbers of village Bakrol, 347 survey numbers of village Kharod and 194 of village Umarvada have been acquired, in all 959 survey numbers have been acquired of more than one village for constitution of the Panoli Industrial Area. The said notification has been issued by order and in the name of the Hon'ble Governor of Gujarat and, therefore, the said area is decided to be a small intermediate area for which the State Government decided not to constitute a municipality. All basic infrastructures have been provided by respondent No.5 – GIDC. It is pertinent to note that the local self-governments are to be constituted under the said State enactments for the area which may be a village or a small intermediate to larger urban area. Therefore, though there is a constitutional mandate for constitution of the local self- government, there is an exception as pointed out under Article 243-Q of the Constitution for which the State Government can decide not to constitute a local self-government if the existing circumstances so demand that the constitution of the local self-
government is not necessary in or for industrial township for which basic necessities and infrastructures are provided by a competent authority. In the present case, Panoli Industrial Township is such small intermediate urban area for which the State Government decided not to constitute a municipality”.
5. The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions may be referred as under for appreciation of the rival submissions:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
Article 243 : Definitions -
(a) .... .... ....
(b) .... .... ....
(c) .... .... ....
(d) “Panchayat” means an institution (by whatever name called) of self-government constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas;
(e) “Panchayat area” means the territorial area of a Panchayat;
(f) .... .... ....
(g) “village” means a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village for the purposes of this Part and includes a group of villages so specified.
Article 243-B : Constitution of Panchayats -
(1) There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
(2) .... .... ....
Article 243-C: Composition of Panchayts -
(1) .... .... ....
(2) All the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area.
Article 243-K : Elections to the Panchayats.—
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
(2) .... .... ....
(3) .... .... ....
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats.
Article 243-N : Continuance of existing laws and Panchayats-
Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier:
Provided that all the Panchayats existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State.
243-O: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) .... .... ....
GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT, 1993
Sec.2 Definitions -
“(31) “Ward” means an area into which a village is divided under section 16.
“Sec.7 Recommendation specification of a village -
After making such inquiries as may be prescribed, the competent authority may recommend any local area comprising a revenue village, or a group of revenue villages, or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, for being specified a village under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution, if the population of such local area does not exceed fifteen thousand.
[Note- For scheduled areas of the State, proviso to sub- section (1) has been added. ] (2) After consultation with the taluka panchayat, the district panchayat and village panchayat concerned (if already constituted), the competent authority may at any time recommend inclusion within or exclusion from any village any local area or otherwise alteration of limits of any village, or recommend cesser of any local area to be a village, to the Governor for exercise of his powers under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution.
Sec.9 Constitution of Village Panchayats -
(1) A village panchayat shall consist of such number of members as provided in sub-section (4).
(2) The members of a village panchayat shall be elected from amongst the qualified voters of the village.
(3) .... .... ....
(4) .... .... ....
(5) .... .... ....
CHAPTER III
Election to Members of Panchayats, Election Disputes etc.
Sec.15 Election-
(1) .... .... ....
(2) such election shall be conducted in the prescribed manner.
Sec.16 Electoral divisions -
(1) For the purpose of elections of members to a village panchayat, a village shall be divided by the State Election Commission into as many single member wards as the total number of members specified in respect of the village panchayat of that village in sub-section (4) of section 9, and in such manner that as far as practicable the population of all the wards is the same; and one member shall be elected from each such ward.
(2) .... .... ....
(3) .... .... ....
(4) At any time not later than two months before the date of the expiry of the duration of a panchayat under section 13 and in the case of a panchayat which is to be constituted or reconstituted under the provisions of this Act otherwise than on the expiry of its duration under section 13, at any such time before it is to be constituted or, as the case may be reconstituted, it shall be lawful for State Election Commission -
(a) to alter, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the limits of any ward of the concerned village, for the purpose of general election in relation to a village panchayat.
(b) to alter, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the limits of any territorial constituency of the concerned taluka or district, for the purpose of general election in relation to a taluka or district panchayat.
(5) Each ward constituted under sub-section (1) and each territorial constituency constituted under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall, subject to alteration, if any, made under sub-section (4), be an electoral division.
Sec.17 List of Voters for every electoral divisions -
For every electoral division, there shall be a list of voters which shall be prepared and maintained in accordance with the provisions of sections 18 to 22 under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission.
Sec.18 Preparation of list of Voters -
At any time not later than two months before the expiry of the duration of a panchayat under section 13, and in the case of a panchayat which is to be constituted or reconstituted under the provisions of this Act otherwise than on the expiry of its duration under section 13 at any such time as the State Election Commission may after consulting the State Government determine, there shall be prepared for the purpose of the general election of members for constituting or, as the case may be, reconstituting such panchayat, a list of voters for every electoral division in respect of such panchayat as determined under section 16 and in force at the time when such list is prepared.
Sec.19 Persons qualified to be registered as voters -
Every person who is entitled to be registered in the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly under the Central Act shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in the list of voters for the electoral division, to be prepared under section 18.
Sec.20 List of voters -
(1) The electoral roll of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly prepared under the provisions of the Central Act, for the time being in force for such part of the constituency of the Assembly as is included in the relevant electoral division, shall, subject to any amendment, deletion or addition made under sub-section (3) or any inclusion of any name under sub-section (5), be the list of voters for that electoral division.
(2) Such officer of the State Government as the State Election Commission may specify in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as “the specified officer”) shall, subject to superintendence, direction and control of the commission, maintain a list of voters for each electoral division, the list shall be published in the prescribed manner.
(3) If on an application made to him in this behalf or on his own motion, the specified officer is satisfied that the list of voters is at variance with the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly on account of any mistake in the list, he shall amend the list so as to bring it in conformity with the said electoral roll and for that purpose may amend, delete or add any entry in that list.
(4) Any person who has become entitled to be registered in the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly under the Central Act, after the qualifying date, may apply to the specified officer for inclusion of his name in this list.
(5) Where the specified officer after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly under the Central Act, he shall direct the name of the applicant to be included in the list of voter;
Provided that no such direction shall be given if the applicant is disqualified to vote under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.
(6) No amendment, deletion or addition of any entry in the list of voters for an electoral division shall be made under sub-section (3) and no direction for inclusion of a name in that list shall be given under sub-section (5) during the period between such date as the State Election Commission may, by general or special order, notify in this behalf and the date of the completion of any concerned election in the electoral division.
Explanation- In this section the expression “qualifying date” has the same meaning as in clause (b) of section
14 of the Central Act.
(7) The list of voters shall after it is finally prepared under this section be published in the prescribed manner and shall come into operation immediately upon its final publication.”
6. Among the judgments relied upon and discussed at the bar, the following parts are relevant.
(a) In Bashir Adamji Adat v. State of Gujarat, Division Bench of this Court, in judgment dated 13.6.2007 in MCA No.1409 of 2007 in SCA No.13158 of 2007 in respect of election to the same Sanjali Gram Panchayat, in view of the undisputed fact that individual notices were not issued to 597 persons and prescribed procedure under section 22 of the ROP Act of 1950 was not followed, directed the authorities to hold election as scheduled on the basis of the list of voters published on 20.10.2006. However, in view of that order, another Division Bench had, by order dated 20.12.2011 in SCA No.17421 of 2011, directed the District Election Officer and Collector, Bharuch to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one month and the order dated 01.02.2012 impugned herein was made after affording opportunity of being heard.
(b) In Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2004 SC 1975], reversing an interim order of the Bombay High Court, the Apex Court observed:
“12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.”
(c) In Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1999 SC 826], the Supreme Court has made categorical observations as under:
“10. The Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1962 was amended on 20-8-1993 in view of the insertion of Part IX-A in the Constitution. Section 264-A was substantially amended. It now provided that "for the purpose of this chapter notified area means an urban area or part thereof specified to be an industrial township area under the proviso to Cl. (1) to Art. 243- Q of the Constitution of India." Thus, as a result of this amendment in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, an industrial area under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, which is notified under S. 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act would become a notified area under the new S. 264-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and would mean an industrial township area under the proviso to Cl. (1) of Art. 243-Q of the Constitution of India.
“16. ..... If by a notification issued under S. 16, these industrial areas are deemed to be notified areas under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and are equated with industrial townships under the proviso to Cl. (1) of Article 243-Q, the constitutional scheme is not violated. In fact, under Chapter 3 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has been given power, inter alia, to develop land for the purpose of facilitating the location of industries and commercial centres. It has also been given the power to provide amenities and common facilities in such areas including provision of roads, lighting, water supply, drainage facilities and so on. It may do this either jointly with Government or local authorities or on an agency basis in furtherance of the purposes for which the Corporation is established. The industrial area thus has separate provision for Municipal services being provided by the Industrial Development Corporation. Once such an area is a deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964, it is equated with an industrial township under Part IX-A of the Constitution, where Municipal services may be provided by industries. We do not see any violation of a constitutional provision in this scheme.
“17. ....By reason of the notifications of 7-9-1993, the industrial area developed under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act is also deemed to be an industrial township for the purposes of local self-Government. Any possible conflict is also removed by the second notification of 7-9-1993 removing this area from the ambit of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961........
“18. ......Therefore, in respect of any of these three types of areas set out in Cl. (1) of Art. 243-Q, having regard to the size of the area, the Municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area, and such other factors as the Governor will deem fit to consider, he may, by public notification specify such area to be an industrial township. All these relevant factors would be in operation in an industrial area already notified many years back under an Industrial Development Corporation Act as in the present case. Therefore, there is no breach of Art. 243-Q if such an area is under the provisions of an Industrial Development Act ”
(d) In BIMA Office Premises Co-operative Society v. Kalamboli Village Panchayat [AIR 2001 Bombay 83], the Bombay High Court observed:
“38. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the decision of the Apex Court in Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat [1999 AIR SCW 452: AIR 1999 SC 826] (supra), that the area of the new town known as “New Bombay” has to be treated as a transitional area under Article 243-Q(3) of the Constitution, cannot be accepted in absence of any public notification issued under the signature of the Governor of the State. In Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat (supra), it is clear from the text of paragraph 13 of the said judgment that by notification dated 14.4.1994 issued by the Gujarat Government in exercise of powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, Gujarat Government had specified certain areas comprised in the gram or nagar and had declared them to be the transitional areas. Under sub-clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, Governor has to issue public notification considering the population of the area, density of the population therein with other factors mentioned in the said Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution. No such notification has been issued by the governor of the State; at any rate no material in this behalf is produced before us. Under these circumstances, the submissions made in this behalf are devoid of any substance. The same cannot be accepted. In the result, the challenges set up by the petitioners must fail.”
7. Judgment of the Apex Court in Saij Gram Panchayat (supra) squarely applies in the facts of the present case on all fours in view of the relevant and undisputed facts that the area in question was covered by the notification dated 11.9.1998, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the GID Act of 1962 so as to declare that the provisions relating to the notified area contained in Chapter XVI-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and other provisions of that Act shall extend to and brought into force in Panoli Industrial Area which comprised, inter alia, of many survey numbers of village Sanjali including survey No.177. It is also clearly stated in that notification that provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 which were in force in Panoli Industrial Area shall cease to apply to the notified areas declared to be so by the notification. In fact, the area, particularly of survey No.177 of Sanjali, is shown to be “Government Land” and when that land was granted to GIDC, it was shown and taken to be a pond. Therefore, if application of the provisions of the Act had ceased to apply to the notified area since notification dated 10.9.1998, the provisions contained in the Panchayats Act cannot be legally pressed into service for asserting the claim for being voters on the basis of name of persons like the petitioner continuing on electoral roll for election to the State Legislative Assembly.
8. Even referring to the provisions of the Panchayats Act, it could be seen that under section 20 thereof, the requirement is to maintain a list of voters for each electoral division and “ward” means an area into which a village is divided under section 16. Under the provisions of section 16, a village has to be divided into as many single member wards as the total number of members specified in respect of village panchayat of that village and each ward so constituted shall be an electoral division. Such scheme of the Act clearly indicates that a list of voters is to be maintained in respect of a ward or an electoral division of a village. “Village” according to Article 243 (g) of the Constitution, means a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village. Where by a notification issued by and in the name of Governor certain areas are expressly excluded and it is declared that the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 shall cease to apply, such areas cannot be treated as part of the village and the question of constituting a territorial constituency or a ward or an electoral division for such an area cannot arise under the Act.
9. In view of the facts and legal position discussed hereinabove, the first petition, being SCA No.2317 of 2012, is found to be misconceived and required to be dismissed as such. And the interim relief granted herein, following the principle laid down in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and on the basis of muddled misrepresentation, has to be vacated and nullified. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, interim relief granted therein is vacated and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Consequently, the votes cast pursuant to the interim order made herein shall be ignored for all purposes. Upon dismissal of the first petition, the second petition, being SCA No.7330 of 2012, cannot survive and it is accordingly disposed.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/ ( G.B.Shah, J.) Upon the judgment being pronounced today, learned counsel Mr.M.M.Saiyed requested for extending the interim relief, which was operating in SCA No.2317 of 2012, by four weeks. There being no justification for granting such relief, the request is rejected.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/ ( G.B.Shah, J.)