Manubhai Khodabhai Patel and Others vs State of Guajrat and Others

B.J. Shethna, J.—Petitioners (1) Manubhai Khodabhai Patel, (2) Devendra R. Brahmbhatt, and (3)Chimanbhai Parshottambhai Patel, residents of village Tarapur of District Anand have jointly filed this petition and prayed that respondent No. 2 - State of Gujarat and respondent No. 3 - State Election Commission be directed to convert Tarapur Gram Panchayat into Tarapur Municipal Borough as its population exceeded 15000 as per the Certificate (Annexure : A) dated 8.1.2006 issued by the Mamlatdar of Tarapur.

Initially, the petitioners have not impleaded the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, as party respondent to this proceeding. Therefore, he was impleaded with the permission of the Court as party respondent No. 5. Thereafter, Notice was ordered to be issued to the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, for ascertaining the fact that on what basis he had issued such Certificate (Annexure:A) dated 8.1.2006. However, though he was duly served, he has not preferred to remain present either personally or through his Advocate.

It was submitted by Shri Rao for the petitioners that once the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, who is the only authentic Authority of Tarapur has given Certificate (Annexure : A) on 8.1.2006 that the population of Tarapur is 16801 then as per the transitional provision of Article 243(Q) there is an automatic conversion of Tarapur Gram Panchayat into Tarapur Municipal Borough and, therefore, the State Election Commission has wrongly included village Tarapur into Gram Panchayat Election of the State, which is going to be held on 10.12.2006.

In response to the Notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the State Election Commission, detailed Reply Affidavit is filed wherein it is contended that it had already announced the election of the village Panchayat in the State of Gujarat, under its order dated 15.11.2006. Thus, preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel Shri Nilay Anjaria, appearing for the Election Commission that once the election process is started then this Court should not interfere in view of well settled provision of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the election matters. Shri Anjaria, on the basis of Reply Affidavit, also submitted that as per the Notification dated 15.4.1994 the Local Area is stated to be �village� under Article 243(g) of the Constitution. The said Notification of 1994 holds the field even today and as per the mandatory requirement the State Election Commission was required to proceed further with the holding of Panchayat election as per Article 243(E) of the Constitution. Shri Anjaria further submitted that on what basis the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, had issued the Certificate (Annexure : A) is not known. However, in the Certificate issued by the Mamlatdar it is stated that the projected population of Tarapur can be said to be 16801 as on 1.1.2006, this is not based on any material. Hence, no such reliance can be placed on it.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the election process is already started, therefore, on this ground alone the petition was required to be rejected. Secondly, in absence of any Affidavit of the Mamlatdar, though served not preferred to remain present before the Court, no reliance can be placed on the bare Certificate dated 8.1.2006, issued by the Mamlatdar regarding the population. Even the said Certificate said that it is a projected population of Tarapur. In absence of any material it cannot be relied upon.

Before parting, we must say that the learned Counsel Shri Rao vehemently submitted that the population of Tarapur village was 14934 way back in April, 1994, therefore, it is necessary that after a period of 12 years its population would certainly cross the figure of 15000. This may be true regarding cities, but it is a different story in villages. It may even decrease because of continuous migration of villagers to the cities. These are all hypothetical arguments without any basis. Therefore, no importance can be attached.

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. No order as to costs.