Emergency election power includes the full electoral process, and disturbed conditions can justify postponing panchayat reconstitution.

Section 303A of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was construed as an emergency power aimed at disturbed conditions, so "to hold elections" covers the entire electoral process, including delimitation and preparation of rolls, not merely polling and declaration of results. The court also treated the Government's satisfaction on inexpediency as largely non-justiciable once the objective existence of disturbances was shown. On the facts, continuing unrest supported the notification, and resort to this provision was not shown to be colourable or mala fide merely because another term-extension power existed. The notification was therefore upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of Section 303A of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the expression "to hold elections for the reconstitution of a panchayat" includes only the actual polling process or also the preparatory stages such as delimitation of constituencies and preparation of electoral rolls; (ii) whether the impugned notification was invalid because the statutory condition precedent was not satisfied or because the power was exercised for an extraneous and mala fide purpose.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of Section 303A of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the expression "to hold elections for the reconstitution of a panchayat" includes only the actual polling process or also the preparatory stages such as delimitation of constituencies and preparation of electoral rolls.

Analysis: Section 303A was an emergency provision intended to meet a grave situation caused by disturbances in the State. The expression "to hold elections" was capable of both a narrow and a wide meaning, and the statutory context required a construction that advanced the object of the provision. The Court held that the phrase was not confined to the actual casting of votes and declaration of results, but extended to the entire electoral process, including the preliminary steps necessary for conducting elections. The Government's subjective satisfaction as to inexpediency was not open to judicial review once the objective existence of disturbances was shown.

Conclusion: The expression "to hold elections" includes the preparatory stages as well as the actual conduct of the election; the condition precedent was not limited to the commencement of polling.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notification was invalid because the statutory condition precedent was not satisfied or because the power was exercised for an extraneous and mala fide purpose.

Analysis: The evidence showed that serious disturbances continued throughout March 1974 and that the abnormal situation persisted on the date of the notification. The opening recital in the notification did not negative its true basis, which was the disturbed condition in the State. The Court also held that the existence of another statutory power to extend the term of panchayats did not render the resort to Section 303A malicious, since Sections 17(2) and 303A operated in different fields and served different objects. No colourable exercise of power or mala fides in law was established.

Conclusion: The notification was valid and was not vitiated by absence of the statutory condition precedent, extraneous considerations, or mala fides.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the notification issued under Section 303A was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers emergency power conditioned on disturbances and the Government's satisfaction that elections cannot expediently be held, the court may examine only the objective existence of the disturbed situation and must construe the operative phrase purposively so as to include the full electoral process, while leaving the subjective assessment of expediency to the Government.

---