R.A. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioners challenge the postponement of elections of Rajkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The election programme was notified on 16-11-1989 by issuing a notice under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 and the nomination papers were to be filed on 8-2-1990 and after different stages, the poll was to be held on 20-2-1990 and counting and declaration of result was to take place on 21-2-1990.
2. On 5-2-1990, the election officer published notice that under the instructions of the Director of Agricultural Market and Rural Finance, the election programme has been postponed for the time being. The petition was filed on 6-2-1990 and notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 7-2-1990 pre-emptorily and the respondents were directed to state the provision and circumstances under which the impugned decision to cancel the election programme was issued. On 7-2-1990, no affidavit-in-reply was filed and oral submissions were made and rule was issued returnable on 8-2-1990. The petition was heard on 9-2-1990.
3. In the affidavit-in-reply, the allegations of political reasons and mala fide were denied and it was stated that it is not only the election of Rajkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee which was postponed, but of seven such other committees in different districts of Gujarat were also postponed where the polling date was from 12-2-1990 to 20-3-1990 and the reason was that general elections to Gujarat Legislative Assembly were to be held on 27-2-1990 and, therefore, it was directed that the elections to these seven APM Committees be held after the Assembly elections. That order was passed by the Director, the first respondent herein who is the authority which had issued notice Annexure 'A' to the petition. He has filed affidavit-in-reply that when the election programme of Agricultural Produce Market Committee was announced, the Assembly elections were not announced. However, subsequent to the publication of that notification, Assembly elections were announced and the date for such elections was fixed on 27th February 1990. Representations were received to postpone the elections of the Market Committee, and therefore, the matter was examined and it was found that the elections of various Agricultural Produce Market Committees were scheduled in February, March, April and May and the election programme in respect of them had been announced and it was held that the question was not merely of considering postponement of elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rajkot; but of postponement of other Agricultural Produce Market Committees since the difficulties highlighted were common for all. In order to ensure that there is a smooth conduct of the elections of both Assembly and the Agricultural Produce Market Committees, it was felt desirable that the elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committees should be postponed for sometime and on scrutiny of dates and various programmes, and keeping in view the polling dates of assembly elections i.e., 27-2-1990, it was felt that elections of such Market Committees which were scheduled beyond middle of April should not be disturbed but the elections of other committees should be postponed and fresh election programme be issued. At the hearing of this petition, the learned Government Pleader had submitted that the fresh election would be held on 7-6-1990 and that there will not be any nomination by the Government.
4. In these facts and circumstances, the first respondent had taken a decision to postpone the election by cancelling the earlier election notification. It cannot be said that in these facts, the decision to postpone the election has been taken mala fide or for political reasons.
5. The next question is whether there is any power to cancel or postpone the election programme once notified. In this connection, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon provisions of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that neither under the Act and Rules nor under Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, an election can be postponed. In any case, the respondent No. 2 has no competence to postpone the election. It is also submitted that conditions of Section 21 were not complied with for cancelling the election notification.
As far as the incompetence of respondent No. 2 is concerned, he has not cancelled the election programme. He has merely published a notice stating that the respondent No. 1 has instructed to cancel the election programme. Therefore, the question of incompetence of respondent No. 2 does not arise at all. The respondent No. 1 is competent to issue the election notification under Rule 10(2) and, therefore, if anyone is competent to cancel the election, he is respondent No. 1 and he has done it.
5.1. As far as the provision of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is concerned, it enables the authority competent to issue notification and/ or order to add, amend, very, or rescind notifications. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not amendment or variation, but it is the postponement of election. It is not possible to agree with the submission of the petitioner. These expressions are wide enough to cover postponement. Each of these expressions i.e. amendment, variation, rescission and addition covers the element of postponement also. Therefore, this argument has no merit.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation or postponement even if it is covered by Section 21 has to be done in the same manner as the original notification of election by ordering in writing and by publishing and affixing a copy in the office. The order of the first respondent is of 5-2-1990. It has been published by way of a notice signed by the respondent No. 2. it is true that the notice which is published in the office of the Market Committee is signed by respondent No. 2 under the authority of respondent No. 1 and there is sufficient compliance with conditions of Section 21. The decisions in the case of State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly and Ors. : (1958)IILLJ634SC Ranchhod Zina v. Patankar, Collector, Bharuch 1966 (VII) GLR 341; Mahmad Yunus Saleem v. Shivkumar Shastri and Ors. : [1974]3SCR738 and Ravi Kiran Jain v. Bar Council of U.P. : AIR1974All211 clearly lay down that the elections can be cancelled or postponed by the authority competent to direct holding of the election.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the statement made by the Government Pleader that the election programme will be issued for holding elections to Rajkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee on 7-6-1990, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.