Judicial review can set aside a municipal election for ignored material facts, but cannot presume excluded voters' preferences.

Judicial review was available because the Presiding Officer proceeded with the municipal president election without considering the detention of two councillors minutes before the meeting, a material circumstance that made the decision to continue procedurally improper and irrational. The election was therefore liable to be set aside. However, the High Court could not speculate how the detained councillors would have voted or treat their votes as cast for one candidate, because judicial review does not permit substitution of a presumed electoral result for the lawful decision-making process. A fresh election was required instead.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in exercising judicial review to set aside the election of the President of the Municipality on the ground that the detention of two councillors shortly before the meeting vitiated the decision to proceed with the election. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the votes of the detained councillors be treated as cast in favour of the first respondent and in declaring him elected as President.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in exercising judicial review to set aside the election of the President of the Municipality on the ground that the detention of two councillors shortly before the meeting vitiated the decision to proceed with the election.

Analysis: The election was governed by Section 32 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and the Election Rules. Although Section 32(4) required a draw of lots where votes were equal, the Presiding Officer was also bound by Rule 10 of the Election Rules, which enabled postponement if the election was not held for any reason. The detention of two councillors a few minutes before the scheduled meeting was a relevant circumstance that ought to have been considered before proceeding. The failure to take that factor into account rendered the decision to continue with the meeting procedurally improper and irrational. Judicial review was therefore available because the decision-making process was vitiated by unreasonableness and disregard of a material consideration.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the election of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the votes of the detained councillors be treated as cast in favour of the first respondent and in declaring him elected as President.

Analysis: Once the High Court found fault with the election process, it could not assume how the two detained councillors would have voted. The controversy was not about counting or invalidity of votes cast, but about speculation regarding hypothetical voting preference. Judicial review is confined to the legality of the decision-making process and does not permit the court to substitute its own assessment of the election outcome on conjecture. The proper course, after setting aside the election, was to require a fresh election rather than to declare one candidate elected on of probable support.

Conclusion: The direction treating the detained councillors' votes as cast for the first respondent and declaring him elected was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The election of the appellant could not stand because the decision to proceed with the meeting was vitiated by failure to consider a material circumstance, but the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting a presumed electoral result. The matter required a fresh election for the office of President.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review may invalidate an administrative election decision where a material consideration is ignored and the action becomes irrational or procedurally improper, but the court cannot speculate on how excluded voters would have voted and cannot itself confer electoral victory on that basis.

---