PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

p. 134 Copy page pinpoint

A (Ashoksinh Parmar) Deputy Secretary to Government.”

74Copy pinpoint74. A bare perusal of the notification dated 04.12.2014 indicates that the said notification is not in reference to the notification dated 27.11.2014 rather the said notification was issued regarding determination of number of Wards and Councillors’ seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and women. Thus, the argument that notification dated 04.12.2014 issued before expiry of 30 days is wholly misconceived. The appellants themselves have brought on record a notification dated 15.01.2015 as Annexure P-9 to the paper book which is the notification issued in reference to the notification dated 27.11.2014. Notification dated 15.01.2015 reads: “NOTIFICATION Government of Gujarat Urban Development and Urban Housing Department D Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar Dated 15th January, 2015 NO.KV-38 of 2015 – MISC – 102014 – 564- - P: WHEREAS, the certain draft rules were published as required by sub-section E (2) of section 456 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bom. LIX of 1949), at pages 76-1 and 76-2, Part I-A, in the Central Section of the Gujarat Government Gazette, Extra Ordinary, dated the 27th November, 2014 under the Government Notification, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department No.KV/184 of 2014, inviting objections or suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the said notification in the Official Gazette. Xxx xxx xxx xxxx”

75Copy pinpoint75. Thus, in reference to notification dated 27.11.2014, the notification was issued on 15.01.2015,Rules, namely, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 were issued which specifically mentioned that objections and suggestions in pursuance of draft have been considered by the Government. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the above notification.

p. 135 Copy page pinpoint

OF GUJARAT & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

76Copy pinpoint76. In view of the above discussion, we answer Question No.3 in A the following manner: Notification dated 04.12.0214 being not in reference to notification dated 27.11.2014 which notification was on entirely different subject, there is no illegality in issuing notification dated 04.12.2014. B

77Copy pinpoint77. We having found that the provisions of Section 5(3) (iii)(a) and Section 29A of Act, 1949 and Rule 4 and 5 of Rules, 1994 and Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 are not ultra vires to Part IXA of the Constitution, the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. We, thus, do not find C any merit in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.24950 of 2015 and the Writ Petition (C)No.786 of 2020. Hence, the civil appeal and writ petition are dismissed. Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C)No.30635 of 2015-State Election Commission vs. Virendrasinh Mafaji Vaghela & Ors.) D

78Copy pinpoint78. The appeal has been filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 21.10.2015 by which writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed. The High Court in paragraph 72 has issued directions which we have noted above. The High Court found the Ordinance No.3 of 2015 as unconstitutional and void. The action of the State Election Commission for postponement of the election of all local E bodies in the State was held to be illegal and set aside. The State Election Commission was directed to initiate process of holding the election of the local bodies forthwith. In pursuance of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2015 Elections for the local bodies were held in November/December, 2015. The direction of the Division Bench F dated 21.10.2015 having been carried out nothing remains to be decided in this appeal. The tenure of the Local Body constituted in pursuance of the impugned direction of the High Court dated 21.10.2015 having come to end, we see no necessity to enter into issue raised in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. G

Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.