2006 (9) TMI 552 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Order of High Court in exercising its power of judicial review and setting aside the election - election of the Appellant as President of Anand Municipality - two candidates having got equal number of votes in their favour - In view of equality of votes, following the procedure laid down in Section 32 (4) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - drew lots - Respondent No. 1, declared as the elected President of the said Municipality - two councillors detained with the sole intention of preventing them from attending the meeting convened for election of President and Vice-President of the Municipality - Court directed that the votes of the said councillors be treated as having been cast in favour of the first Respondent and has consequently declared him as having been elected as President of Anand Municipality - HELD THAT - The principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality, classified by Lord Diplock as one of the grounds' for intervention in judicial review, was lucidly summarised by Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Greene Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corpn. It is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Thus, we are of the view that on facts in hand the High Court was fully justified in exercising its power of judicial review and set aside the election of the appellant. Whether the detention of the two councillors was such a trivial factor in the subject election, which could be overlooked by the Presiding Officer? - It is manifestly clear from the material on record that he was made aware of the said development. In the light of some of the circumstances, viz., (i) after arresting councillors Anilbhai Patel and Meenaben Gohil at around 12.30 P.M., just half an hour before the scheduled time for elections, the police officers did not produce them before the Magistrate immediately, but took them around Anand town in the police van and produced them before the Magistrate only at about 5.00 P.M., by which time the elections were already held and the results were also declared; (ii) no circumstance brought on record by the police to show that it would have been inexpedient to wait till the elections were over before effecting arrest of Anilbhai Patel and Meenaben Gohil. Both the councillors are residents of Anand and their co-accused in the respective offences were released by the police officers themselves after arresting them on 5.11.2005; and (iii) there was no circumstance to show that the two councillors would have escaped and avoided arrest if they were allowed to go inside the meeting hall for voting at 1.00 P.M. and if they were not arrested till the meeting for electing President and Vice-President was over. We have no hesitation in holding that the detention of the two councillors, a few minutes before the election meeting was a relevant factor which ought to have been taken into account by the Presiding Officer to decide whether to continue with the election or to postpone it and call the meeting on some other day in terms of Rule Failure to do so not only offends against procedural propriety, it makes his decision to go ahead with the election meeting perverse and irrational, a facet of unreasonableness, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error of law and/or jurisdiction in setting aside the election of the appellant as President of the Anand Municipality. Since we feel that the principle Res ipsa Loquitur is squarely attracted on facts in hand, it is unnecessary to comment on the conduct of the police officials, which in any case does not commend us. Whether, having set aside the election of the appellant, the High Court was justified in declaring respondent no.1 as the President? - In the instant case, admittedly both the candidates had got equal number of votes polled and the appellant was declared as elected on the basis of draw of lots, held as per the prescribed procedure. Admittedly, the controversy did not relate to counting of votes. Under the circumstances, the direction of the High Court that the votes of the two arrested councillors be treated as having been cast in favour of the first respondent, in our view, is based on pure speculation that they would have definitely voted for him. In our opinion, the High Court has erred on this aspect of the matter and therefore, to that extent the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the High Court, declaring the first respondent as the President of the Anand Municipality is set aside. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above, with a direction to the Collector to reconvene the general meeting of the Municipality for the election of the President within two months of the receipt of copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's election as President of Anand Municipality.
2. High Court's jurisdiction to set aside the election under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Detention of two councillors and its impact on the election process.
4. High Court's decision to declare the first respondent as President.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellant's election as President of Anand Municipality:
The appellant's election as President of Anand Municipality was challenged on grounds that two independent councillors were arrested just before the election meeting, preventing them from voting. This led to a tie in votes, resolved by drawing lots as per Section 32(4) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The High Court found that the arrest was intended to prevent these councillors from voting, thus setting aside the appellant's election.

2. High Court's jurisdiction to set aside the election under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court exercised its power of judicial review under Article 226, ensuring that the state acts bonafide and within its powers. The court noted that judicial review is warranted when administrative decisions are illogical, procedurally improper, or shock the conscience of the court. The High Court found the Presiding Officer's decision to proceed with the election despite the councillors' arrest as irrational and procedurally improper, justifying its intervention.

3. Detention of two councillors and its impact on the election process:
The High Court concluded that the arrest of the two councillors was with the sole intention of preventing them from attending the election meeting. The Presiding Officer was aware of their arrest but proceeded with the election. The court held that the detention was a relevant factor that should have been considered, and the failure to do so rendered the election process perverse and irrational.

4. High Court's decision to declare the first respondent as President:
The High Court accepted the affidavits of the arrested councillors, who stated they would have voted for the first respondent. Consequently, it declared the first respondent as the elected President. However, the Supreme Court found this decision speculative and unsustainable, as it was based on the assumption that the councillors would have definitely voted for the first respondent. The Supreme Court set aside this part of the High Court's judgment and directed the Collector to hold a fresh election.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election due to procedural impropriety but overturned the declaration of the first respondent as President, directing a fresh election.