S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) AS in all these special civil applications, common questions of law and facts arises as well as the same have arisen from the common order passed by the District collector, Rajkot under Sec. 35 (5) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1963), the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are being taken from Special Civil Application No. 79/99. The petitioners were duly elected as councillors of the Morbi Nagarpalika, Morbi. The petitioners have won the election of the office of councillor of the Morbi Nagarpalika, morbi as candidates of Bhartiya Janata Party. It is the case of the petitioners that immediately after the election of the councillors of the Morbi Nagarpalika, Morbi, the signatures of the councillors on blank papers have been taken for submitting resignations of their from councillorship as and when necessity arises. ( 3 ) THE petitioners stated that against this action of the B. J. P. of taking of the signatures of the councillors on blank papers they made a representation to the President of the Morbi Ngarpalika, Morbi on 11. 1. 1996. Copies of this representation have also been sent to the President, Rajkot District Bhartiya Janata Party, Rajkot and District collector, Rajkot District, Rajkot for information and necessary action. After that the petitioners submitted that on different occasions, resignations of different persons are being utilized or being abused, harassed and pressurized. In February, 1997, resignation of Sharadbhai M. Sampat, Smt. Niranjanben K. Shukla and Girishbhai K. Ghelani were sought to be submitted without their knowledge and consent. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that on the basis of those aforesaid resignations given without any consent or desire, the election commission also declared notification on 10. 2. 1997 declaring the seats of those councillors as vacant for election. Those three persons immediately submitted representation to the District Collector and the District collector passed the order permitting them to participate in the meeting and ultimately their resignation were found to be against their wishes and desire. ( 5 ) IN the submissions of the petitioner, they found that their resignations have also been submitted without they were being aware of it. ( 5 ) IN the submissions of the petitioner, they found that their resignations have also been submitted without they were being aware of it. They came to know about this fact only by the agenda of the meeting of the Morbi Nagarpalika, Morbi circulated by the circular dated 7. 12. 1998 issued by the Collector in which their names were not there. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that there are total 36 members of the Morbi nagarpalika and the agenda aforesaid was circulated to only 26 members. The petitioners made an inquiry and thereupon it revealed to them that the Morbi Nagarpalika vide its letter dated 11. 11. 1998 sent their resignations to the Collector. The petitioners learnt that out of the 10 councillors inclusive of them four persons namely Narendar K. Rathod, shivlal Mohanbhai Patel, Chunilal N. Rajpura and Smt. Hansaben N. Thakker made appeal-cum-representation to the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing, which ultimately came to be decided by the District Collector, Rajkot vide order dated 11. 2. 1998. The District Collector, Rajkot held that these four members have not willingly given their resignation to the Chairman of the Nagarpalika. It has further been held that those resignations have been given by someone else and after giving these findings the representation-cum-appeal of those four councillors was accepted exercising its power as conferred upon him under Sec. 35 (5) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. ( 7 ) THE petitioners after coming to know about the aforesaid decisionof the District collector, Rajkot re : resignation of four councillors of the Morbi Nagarpalika, they made a representation to the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing, Gandhinagar. That representation was made by these petitioners vide fax message dated 23. 12. 1998. This representation of the petitioners was not decided by the respondent No. 1 and as it was an urgent matter for the reason that the election of the Chairman of the Morbi nagarpalika has to be held, they approach this Court by filing special civil application No. 11183/98. This Court on 23. 12. 1998 decided the special civil application. The Court has directed the District Collector, Rajkot to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of the order. This Court on 23. 12. 1998 decided the special civil application. The Court has directed the District Collector, Rajkot to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of the order. In view of this order of the Court, learned counsel who was appearing for the petitioners in that special civil application sought permission to withdraw the same and accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn. ( 8 ) THE District Collector, Rajkot decided the representation of the petitioners under its order dated 2. 1. 1999 and representation has been rejected only on the ground that it is time barred. The District Collector, Rajkot also held that resignation accepted by the president of Morbi Nagarpalika is proper. This order of the District Collector, Rajkot is challenged by the petitioners in these special civil applications. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the rejection of the representation of the petitioners by the District Collector, Rajkot on the ground that it is time barred is arbitrary. The petitioners were not aware of the fact of this fraud committed by the person who has taken their signatures on blank papers. They came to know about this fraud played Upon them only on 7. 12. 1998 when the agenda of the meeting of the morbi Nagarpalika was circulated in which their names were not there. From this date, the period of 30 days as provided under Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 35 of the Act, 1963 could have been counted and if it was counted accordingly, their representation was well in time. ( 10 ) IT has next been contended that on 11. 11. 1998 joint resignation of 10 councillors was received by the President out of which four have made a representation under Sec. 35 (5) of the Act, 1963 and in their cases, the District Collector, Rajkot has accepted as a fact that they have not voluntarily submitted their resignations from the office of the councillors. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cases of the petitioners i. e. six other persons in the resignation dated 11. 11. 1998 is identical to the cases of those four councillors and the decision given by the Collector is squarely covers their matters also. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cases of the petitioners i. e. six other persons in the resignation dated 11. 11. 1998 is identical to the cases of those four councillors and the decision given by the Collector is squarely covers their matters also. Carrying this contention further, Shri J. J. Yagnik, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Collector has deliberately rejected the representation of the petitioners as otherwise their goal and object is to oust these persons away from the election of the Chairman of the Nagarpalika, which was scheduled on 10. 1. 1999 would have failed. If it would not have been the goal, object and purpose then the Collector should have decided the matter in the light of its own earlier judgment given in the identical case of four councillors. ( 11 ) LASTLY, it is contended that it is a clear case of fraud committed by the interested person with the petitioners, the elected councillors and once it is taken to be case of fraud by the Collector in the case of four councillors irrespective of the fact whether their representation has been filed within 30 days or not, the Collector should not have permitted to continue this fraud. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the State, Shri Samir Dave opposed these special civil applications. It is contended that it is not a case of fraud. Secondly, the petitioners know this fact well hut they have not filed any representation within the prescribed period of limitation under Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 35 of the Act, 1963. They filed this representation only after the decision of the Collector is given in the case of four councillors. They were not aggrieved of the submission of their resignations but when the decision has been given in the case of four councillors, they got inspiration for filing of this representation. It has next been contended that the case of the four councillors has been decided on the basis of the evidence which has been produced by the persons before the District collector, Rajkot. On the basis of the material produced, if the Collector has accepted it to be a case of not submitting of the resignations voluntarily by those persons, that decision is of little help to the petitioners in this case. On the basis of the material produced, if the Collector has accepted it to be a case of not submitting of the resignations voluntarily by those persons, that decision is of little help to the petitioners in this case. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts. In this case, the petitioners have failed to produce any cogent and satisfactory evidence before this Court to show and establish that their signatures were taken on the blank papers way back in the year 1996. Otherwise also, what Shri Samir dave contended that the party will not act contrary to its own interest. As per the petitioners own case, out of 36 councillors in the Morbi Nagarpalika, the B. J. P. is having only 20 councillors and in case it used these alleged blank papers signed by these persons for their resignation it will reduce partys strength in the house, which will be detrimental to its own interest. Lastly, it is contended that at no point of time, the petitioners made any complaint to the President of the Morbi Nagarpalika or the District Collector that their signatures have been taken on blank papers for the purpose of using the same for their resignations from the office of the councillor of the Municipality concerned. So far as the representation dated 11. 1. 1996 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not the representation filed by the petitioners. He made a reference to the document, annexure a filed by the petitioners in the special civil application No. 79/99 and drew the attention of this Court on the fact that in this document, the names of those persons who are signatures thereof have not been mentioned. He produced on the record of this special civil application a zerox copy of the representation dated 11. 1. 1996 on which there are signatures of 17 persons and he submitted that the names of either of the petitioners does not figure therein. He produced on the record of this special civil application a zerox copy of the representation dated 11. 1. 1996 on which there are signatures of 17 persons and he submitted that the names of either of the petitioners does not figure therein. ( 13 ) DURING the course of arguments, zerox copy of this document was shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners to show whether all the petitioners or any of the petitioners signed this document but he has shown his total inability to say anything in this repect and prayed for adjournment of the matter to call his client to ascertain whether their signatures on the document are there are not. ( 14 ) SHRI Sudhanshu Patel, appearing for the respondent in two petitions adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Samir Dave. ( 15 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. For the decision of these special civil applications, the provisions as contained in Sec. 35 of the Act, 1963 are relevant and the same are to be referred in this judgment. Relevant portion of this section for the purposes of the decision of these writ petitions is as contained in Sub-sees. (3) and (5) of this section. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 35 of the Act, 1963 provides that any of the councillor may resign from his office by tendering his resignation in writing to the President. Such resignation shall take effect from the date of its receipt by the President. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 35 lays down that if any dispute of resignation arises it shall be referred to decision to such officer as the State Government may be general or special order appointed in that behalf and the decision of such officer shall be final. Proviso I to this sub-section is also to be referred which provides that no such dispute shall be entertained after expiry of the period of 30 days from the date on which the resignation took effect. In this case, if we go by the facts, the resignation has been received by the President of the Morbi Municipality on 11. 11. 1998. On the same day, the President has intimated the District Collector, Rajkot of tendering of resignation by ten councillors mentioned therein. In this case, if we go by the facts, the resignation has been received by the President of the Morbi Municipality on 11. 11. 1998. On the same day, the President has intimated the District Collector, Rajkot of tendering of resignation by ten councillors mentioned therein. ( 16 ) IT is not in dispute that four other persons raised the dispute in the matter of their resignation within 30 days and the acceptance of the same. That dispute was decided by the District Collector, Rajkot on 11. 12. 1998. This order of the Collector is on the record of this special civil application filed by the petitioner as annexure e at page No. 23. The petitioners admittedly sent their representation to the Secretary, Rural Development and rural Housing Department, Gandhinagar on 23. 12. 1998. ( 17 ) THE agenda of the meeting dated 13. 12. 1998 of the Nagar Palika was circulated vide circular dated 7. 12. 1998. The petitioner came to know on 7. 12. 1998 that this agenda was not sent to them. The petitioners have not lodged any complaint or protest against this circular either to the President of the Nagarpalika or to the Collector. In case the petitioner really would not have submitted the resignation as what they are alleging in this special civil application, the first reaction after this notice of the agenda of the meeting of the nagar Palika scheduled on 13. 12. 1998 should have been to make hue and cry. The total silence on the part of the petitioners in the matter at this stage goes to show that what they are alleging and contending is apparently an afterthought or a concoction. The petitioners permitted the Nagar Palika to hold its meeting on 13. 12. 1998. Not only this the petitioners filed their appeal-cum- representation to the Collector under Sec. 35 (5) of the Act on 23. 12. 1998. That is after more than 15 days of the date of the circular of the agenda of the meeting of the Nagar Palika scheduled on 13. 12. 1998. The petitioners should have lodged this appeal-cum-representation immediately after 7. 12. 1998. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the petitioner for this long gap. Sub-sec. 12. 1998. That is after more than 15 days of the date of the circular of the agenda of the meeting of the Nagar Palika scheduled on 13. 12. 1998. The petitioners should have lodged this appeal-cum-representation immediately after 7. 12. 1998. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the petitioner for this long gap. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 35 of the Act and particularly proviso thereto makes a mandatory provision that no such dispute resignation of councillor shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of 30 days from the date on which the resignation took efffect. In this case, the resignation took effect on 10. 11. 1998 and the period of limitation as prescribed under the aforesaid provision for entertainment of the dispute of resignation started from that date. The proviso to Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 35 of the Act nowhere empowers the officer concerned to entertain such dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed therein. Though I do not consider it to be necessary to decide in this special civil application a wider issue that after expiry of period of 30 days from the date of resignation took effect, the officer concerned has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, but, prima facie if we go by the language of the proviso to Sub-sec. (5) of the Sec. 35 of the Act and Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, I find that there may not be any power to the officer to condone the delay made in raising the dispute under the said provision by a councillor re his resignation. ( 18 ) IN this case the plea has been raised by the petitioner that they have not tendered the resignatioin to the President. It is alleged to be a case of forged document prepared and in the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner contended that the Collector should not have non suited them. It is also the plea of the petitioners that the identical matter has been decided by the Collector and the same decision should have been given in this case by the Collector rather than to non-suited them on the technical view of the limitation. It is true that where a forged document has been used then certainly the matter may be considered from a different aspect and angle. It is true that where a forged document has been used then certainly the matter may be considered from a different aspect and angle. But in this case even after knowing of this fact the petitioner has slipped over the matter for 15 days. Be that as it may. ( 19 ) WHETHER it is a case of forged document or not falls for the consideration in this matter. It is the case of the petitioners that they signed the blank papers in the year 1996 and those signed blank papers of theirs have been used in preparing a forged resignation and it has been taken by the President. When the petitioners have accepted their signatures on these resignation then heavy burden lies on them to prove that it is a forged document. The reliance has been placed in support of their cases by the petitioner on the decision of the Collector given in the case of 4 other councillors on 11. 12. 1998. I have gone through this order of the Collector and that matter has been decided on its own facts. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and the question of examining validity, legality and propriety of the order of the Collector dated 11. 12. 1998 does not arise in this special civil application but, otherwise I have my own reservation on this order of the Collector. It is the case of the petitioner that when they were authorised by B. J. P. to contest the election of councillor under its banner their signature were taken on the blank papers. It has done in the year 1996 as per the case of the petitioners. The petitioners very conveniently did not disclose in this special civil application who was the officer bearers of the B. J. P. taken their signatures on the blank papers. For non- disclosure of the name of the person who has taken the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers it is very difficult to accept their this plea. Not only this in case it could have really been the case of taking their signatures on blank papers, the petitioners should have lodged their complaint immediately after the election but this has also not been done by them. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 11. 1. Not only this in case it could have really been the case of taking their signatures on blank papers, the petitioners should have lodged their complaint immediately after the election but this has also not been done by them. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 11. 1. 1996 a complaint has been lodged by the petitioners and a document at Annexure-A has also been produced on the record of this special civil application. But, it is difficult to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for more than one reasons. The petitioners along with this special civil application has produced only a typed copy of that document. The learned counsel for the respondents on the record of this special civil application has produced a xerox copy of this document and he contended that this document does not bear the signatures of any petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute this document is the xerox copy of the original of Annexure-A. This document has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners and he has shown his total inability to controvert this factual aspect as raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he may be given time to ascertain this fact from his clients. This matter is pending for dictation of judgment for last more than one month and the learned counsel for the petitioner still has not produced anything on the record. Not only this the petitioners have not produced any other cogent or satisfactory evidence in support of their case that on 11. 1. 1996 they made a complaint to the President of the Nagar Palika that their signatures were taken on blank papers. Copy of this representation was stated to be sent to the then Dist. President of B. J. P. and the District collector, Rajkot. The petitioners have not produced any record from the office of the president of B. J. P. of Rajkot nor has produced any record from the office of the District collector, Rajkot to prove and establish that they have submitted any such representation. President of B. J. P. and the District collector, Rajkot. The petitioners have not produced any record from the office of the president of B. J. P. of Rajkot nor has produced any record from the office of the District collector, Rajkot to prove and establish that they have submitted any such representation. It is otherwise very difficult to believe what so say to accept that a person, who has contested the election of the councillor of the Nagar Palika to or represent the peoples of his ward will act in such manner and fashion, which may also against the basic and fundamental principles of democracy. In the facts of this case it is difficult to accept that the petitioners have given their signature on blank papers and with clear understanding to be used the same for preparing their resignations from the office of the councillors of the nagar Palika. In case the signatures in blank papers were being taken by the leaders of the political parties in the country before authorising a candidate to contest the election under the banner of the party for the purpose of utilising the same for preparing resignation of councillor it is certainly against the basic and fundamental principles of democrary and in fact it is fraud with the voters of the country. It is also fraud with the system of this election and it is a matter of serious concern of the persons, who are heading the political parties in the country. I find sufficient merits and justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no political party will act contrary to its own interest in the House. In case the forged resignations would have been prepared then certainly if we go by the strength of the B. J. P. in the Nagar Palika, it will certainly reduce the partys strength in the House, which can be detrimental to its own interest. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not really aggrieved in this matter but only when the Collector has decided the matter of 4 other councillors they got inspiration from that judgment to file their representation-cum-appeal before the Collector in the matter, is not without merits and substance. The Collector gave his order on 11. 12. 1998 and much thereafter this protest has been lodged by the petitioners. The Collector gave his order on 11. 12. 1998 and much thereafter this protest has been lodged by the petitioners. In these facts and circumstances which borne out from the record of this special civil application the Collector, Rajkot has not committed any error or irregularity in passing of the impugned order. The view taken by the Dist. Collector, Rajkot in this case cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. In the facts of this case a man of reasonable understanding could have taken the view which has been taken by the District collector, Rajkot to which no exception can be made by this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution. Otherwise also, if it is accepted for time being that whatever stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct then also the petitioners disentitle themselves to get any relief from this Court in its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction. In the matter where a litigant approaches to this Court for seeking relief under its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, the conduct of the litigant is very important and relevant. If the conduct of the litigant is of dubious or deceitful then certainly this court may decline to grant any relief even if he has strong case in his favour on merits. The petitioners have contests the election for the office of the councillor of the Nagar Palika. The political partys recognition of the candidates to contest election under its banner may be relevant but, the important thing is that the petitioners have elected by the peoples (voters ). The peoples casting their votes in favour of the petitioners having faith, belief and confidence that they are their representatives to protect their rights, interest as well as to see that their ward is provided with the amenities, facilities etc. In case where in consideration of their having been a recognised candidate of a political party if they entered into of signing of the blank papers for the purpose of utilising the same to prepare their resignations it is certainly a fraud by them to the voters. Such persons deserves no sympathy of this Court nor equities are also there in their favour. It is otherwise also the fittest of the fit case where such persons should not be allowed to continue as councillors of Nagar Palika. Such persons deserves no sympathy of this Court nor equities are also there in their favour. It is otherwise also the fittest of the fit case where such persons should not be allowed to continue as councillors of Nagar Palika. It is a case where the petitioners have more concern with their own interest and capturing of chair rather than to have concern and the consideration for the voters, who have in fact elected them the councillors of the Nagar Palika. ( 20 ) LOOKING to the class to which the petitioners belong and place where they reside it is very very difficult to disbelieve, what to say not to accept that in case it would have really been a case of the forged resignations of their, certainly they would have known about it on 10. 11. 1998 or 11. 11. 1998 at least. . ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to raise male fide against the dist. Collector, Rajkot, but the petitioners have failed to make out any case of mala fides. The necessary pleadings in support of this alleged allegation of mala fides are not there. ( 22 ) THE net result of this discussion is that the petitioners have failed to establish that in this case forged resignations of their have been prepared by the interested persons and submitted the same before the President of the Nagar Palika, The limitation to make the reference in the matter to the District Collector, Rajkot starts from the date 10. 11. 1998, the day on which the resignation took effect and the representation has not been filed within 30 days thereof, it is rightly been rejected as barred by limitation by the District Collector Rajkot. ( 23 ) VIDE order of the State Government dated 8. 1. 1999 administrator of the Morbi nagar Palika has been appointed. It is not in dispute that on 9. 1. 1999 the administrator took the charge of the Nagar Palika and he is functioning as an administrator till this date. It is true that the interested persons have challenged the order of the State government dated 8. 1. 1999 appointing thereunder the administrator of the nagarpalika by filing Special Civil Application No. 207/99 before this Court. It is also true that on 12. 1. It is true that the interested persons have challenged the order of the State government dated 8. 1. 1999 appointing thereunder the administrator of the nagarpalika by filing Special Civil Application No. 207/99 before this Court. It is also true that on 12. 1. 1999 in that special civil application notice has been issued to the respondents and interim relief to maintain status quo has also been ordered. But, as before the said date the administrator has taken the charge of the Nagar Palika he continues till today as administrator thereof. So, otherwise in view of these facts now nothing substantial survive in these special civil applications also. In the result, all these special civil applications fail and the same are dismissed. .