JAYARAJBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL versus ANILBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 11-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAYRAJBHA! JAYANT!BHA! PATEL 
\I. 
AN!LBHAI JAYANT!BHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER! I, 2006 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Municipal election-Decision of Presiding Officer-
C Judicial review of-Held, when Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or 
misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court 
to intervene-Gzy·arat Municipalities Act, 1963-s. 32. 
D 
Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963: 
s. 32(4)-Municipality-Election of President-Two contestants-
Detention of two Councillors before election meeting-Presiding Officer 
holding election-The two contestants getting equal number of votes pol/ed-
E/ection declared by draw of lots-High Court in writ petition setting aside 
the election and declaring the defeated candidate as President on the ground 
E that votes of two detained councilors would be treated as having been cast 
in his favour-Held, detention of two Councillors just before few minutes of 
election meeting was a relevant factor-Decision of Presiding Officer to go 
ahead with the election meeting without considering whether to continue the 
election meeting or to postpone it and call the meeting on some other day 
in terms of r. / 0 is perverse and illegal warranting interference under Article 
F 226-However, High Court not justified in declaring the defeated candidate 
as President-Direction given to hold general meeting for election of 
President-Gujarat Municipal (!'resident and Vice President) Election Rules-
r. JO-Constitution of India. 
G 
H 
Doctrine-Res ipsa loquitur-Applicability of 
The Collector issued a notice under s.32 of the Gujarat Municipalities 
Act, 1963 read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Municipalities (President 
and Vice President) Election Rules notifying the programme for holding 
election to the posts of President and Vice President of Anand Municipality 
884 
' 
• 
' 
JA YRAJBHAl.IAYANTIBHAI PATEL v.ANILBHAl.IA YANTIBHAI PATEL 
885 
on the notified date and time. There were 42 Municipal Councillors, out of A 
whom 19 belonged to B.J.P. and 23 were independent, who had formed a group 
called 'Anand Vikas Munch'. Two BJP Councilors did not attend the meeting 
and two other Councillors had been arrested just before the election meeting. 
Two Councillors offered their candidature for the post of President and each 
got 19 votes. In view of equality of votes, the Presiding Officer, in terms of 
s.32( 4) drew lots wherein the appellant was declared elected as President of B 
the Municipality. The election was challenged under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India on the ground that the two Councillors had been arrested 
at the instance of BJP just a few minutes bef~re the election meeting 
intentionally to manoeuvre the election results. The High Court held that the 
two Councillors were detained with the sole intention of preventing them from C 
attending the meeting, and it set aside the election. The High Court further 
held that since the two Councillors filed affidavits stating that they wanted to 
vote for respondent no. I, their votes be treated as having been cast in his 
favour; and consequently, declared respondent no. I as having been elected as 
President of the Municipality. 
In the appeal filed by the person elected as President in the election 
meeting, it was contended that the Presiding Officer having acted strictly as 
D 
per the procedure pres.cribed in s.32 of the Act, the High Court ought not to 
have exercised its extraordina.ry jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution; and that respondent No. I having lost the election in the draw E 
of lots, High Court had no jurisdiction to declare him elected as President of 
the Municipality. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
F . 
HELD: 1.1. 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 G 
generates in the operation oflaw or affects the individual or society. When a 
Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its 
jurisdiction

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.