K. G. Balakrishnan, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat. The appellant filed a Special Civil Application No. 9847 of 2005 praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents in the writ petition, namely, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, the State of Gujarat and the Gujarat State Election Commission, to take all steps necessary for the purpose of holding elections for constituting the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad before the expiry of the duration of the Municipal Corporation constituted pursuant to the elections held in October, 2000. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner before the High Court, was the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AMC"). The elected body of the AMC was constituted for the relevant period pursuant to an election held in October, 2000 and its term was due to expire on October 15, 2005. The appellant apprehended that the authorities may delay the process of election to constitute the new Municipal body and therefore filed the aforesaid writ petition on 23rd August, 2005. The AMC filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that it was the responsibility of the third respondent, namely, the State Election Commission, to conduct the elections in time. The State Election Commission, in a separate affidavit in reply, submitted that under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the State Govt. had issued a Notification on 8th June, 2005 determining the wards for the city of Ahmedabad by which the total number of wards had been increased from 43 to 45 and in view of the increase in the number of wards, the Commission was required to proceed with the exercise of delimitation of the wards of the city of Ahmedabad in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994 and that the Commission had issued a circular requiring the Collectors and the Designated Officers to furnish the details and to make proposals for delimitation of the wards. The Commission contended that it would take two months time to complete the process of delimitation as the preparation of voters list in each ward had to be revised in accordance with the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Registration of Voters) Rules, 1994. It was alleged by the Commission that it was required to consult the political parties to carry out the delimitation of the wards and that it would take at least six months time for completing the process of election and the Commission could act only after the State Govt. issued the notification. The State Govt. produced a chart showing the detailed steps taken by the State Govt. at various stages culminating in the issue of Notification dated 8th June, 2005.
(2.) The appellant contended before the Single Judge that in view of Article 243 U of the Constitution, the authorities were bound to complete the process at the earliest and the elections should have been held before the expiry of the term of the existing Municipal Corporation. The learned Single Judge accepted the timeframe suggested by the State Election Commission and directed that it should be strictly followed and the process of elections must be completed by 31st December, 2005, and that no further extension for holding the elections would be permissible.
(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Judge, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the timeframe given by the State Election Commission was perfectly justified and the Election Commission was directed to begin and complete process as per the dates given in its affidavit and the L.P.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred before us by the appellant.;