SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(SC) 90

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th September 1957
BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
(From: Special Appeal No. 8 of 1955 D/- 30-8- 1955 All.)
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1957.
Mangoo Singh, Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal, Bareilly and others Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. S. Narula, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. B. B. Tawakley, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. P. Gupta, with him), for Respondent No. 3.

Advocates:
B.B.TAVAKLEY, K.P.GUPTA, R.S.NARULA

The disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the U. P. Municipalities Act attaches on the date of filing nominations and is not wiped off by subsequent payment of arrears of tax.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL LAW - DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP - ARREARS IN MUNICIPAL TAX - INTERPRETATION OF CL. (G) OF S. 13-D, U. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT (U. P. ACT NO. II OF 1916) - DISQUALIFICATION ATTACHES ON THE DATE OF FILING NOMINATIONS - SECOND PROVISO TO S. 13-D - WIPING OFF OF DISQUALIFICATION HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - EXPRESSION TO WHICH S. 166 APPLIES IN CL. (G) OF S. 13-D - MEANING OF - SECTIONS 166 AND 168 OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant, Mangoo Singh, and respondent No. 3, Imdad Husain, were candidates for the Municipal Board of Bareilly election. Imdad Husain objected to Mangoo Singh's nomination due to his disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the U. P. Municipalities Act for being in arrears in municipal tax. The objection was dismissed, and Mangoo Singh was declared a returned candidate. Imdad Husain filed an election petition to set aside Mangoo Singh's election on the ground of disqualification. The Election Tribunal and the High Court upheld the disqualification, leading to Mangoo Singh's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the Act attached to Mangoo Singh on the date of filing nominations and was not wiped off by the subsequent payment of arrears. The Court interpreted the expression to which S. 166 applies in cl. (g) of S. 13-D as describing the nature of the demand referred to in the clause and not as requiring the presentation of a bill or service of a demand notice under Ss. 166 and 168 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the U. P. Municipalities Act attaches on the date of filing nominations or on the date of the poll? 2. Whether the second proviso to S. 13-D has retrospective effect in wiping off the disqualification? 3. Whether the expression to which S. 166 applies in cl. (g) of S. 13-D requires the presentation of a bill or service of a demand notice under Ss. 166 and 168 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D attaches on the date of filing nominations because the process of choosing a candidate commences on that date, and a disqualification at that stage prevents the candidate from being chosen. 2. The second proviso to S. 13-D does not have retrospective effect, and a disqualification subsisting on the day of filing nominations cannot be wiped off by subsequent payment of arrears of tax. 3. The expression to which S. 166 applies in cl. (g) of S. 13-D describes the nature of the demand referred to in the clause and does not require the presentation of a bill or service of a demand notice under Ss. 166 and 168 of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the disqualification of Mangoo Singh and the setting aside of his election.

Judgement

S. K. DAS, J, - This appeal has been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad on 3rd February 1956, to the effect that the case is a fit one for appeal to the SC under Ar. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The question that falls for decision is the true scope, meaning and effect of cl. (g) of S. 13-D, U. P. Municipalities Act (U. P. Act No. II of 1916), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The relevant facts, which are not now in dispute, are these. There was a general election to the Municipal Board of Bareilly in October 1953. The appellant, Mangoo Singh, and respondent No. 3, Imdad Husain, along with several others, were candidates at the said election from Ward No. 15. The date fixed for filing nominations was 5th October 1953, and the date for scrutiny of the nominations filed was 7th October 1953.

The appellant and respondent No. 3 both filed their nominations on the due date, and at the time scrutiny Imdad Husain raised an objection to the nomination of the appellant on the ground that the latter was disqualified under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the Act for being chosen as a member of the said Municipal Board because he was in arrears in the payment of Municipal Tax in excess of one year s demand.

This objection was dismissed, and the nomination of the appellant was accepted by the Assistant Officer. The poll took Place on 26th October 1953, and the counting of votes was done on 29th October 1953. Four persons were to be elected from the said Ward, and the appellant was the third in the list by reason of the number of votes which he had obtained. Imadad Hussain was fifth in the list.

Accordingly, the appellant was declared as one of the returned candidates, and Imdad Husain was at the top of the unsuccessful candidates. Imdad Husain then filed an election petition to act aside the election of the present appellant on various grounds. The only ground with which we are now concerned is the disqualification under cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the Act.

This election petition was held by the Election Tribunal and by its judgment dated 20th October 1954, the Election Tribunal held that the appellant was in arrears in the payment of municipal tax in excess of one year s damage to which S. 166 of the Act applied and therefore came under the disqualification in cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the Act.

It further held that the payment of a sum of Rs. 115-3-0 on 10th October 1953, five days after the date fixed for the filing of nominations, did not wipe off that disqualification, and, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S. 13 D of the Act. It may be here stated that the Election Tribunal also held that no bill for payment of the tax was presented to the appellant as required by S. 166, nor was any demand notice served on him as required by S. 168 of the Act.

On the above findings, the Tribunal allowed the election petition, set aside the election of the appellant and declared, a casual vacancy under cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of S. 25 of the Act, which vacancy was subsequently filled up by the election of respondent 3 on 5th April 1955. The next general election in the Municipality is due in October 1957.

3. Against the decision of the Election Tribunal, the appellant moved the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The main point urged by the appellant was that the Election Tribunal was in error in its interpretation of cl. (g) of S. 13-D of the Act Chaturvedi J., who dealt with the application of the appellant, agreed with the view of the law as expressed by the Election Tribunal and dismissed the application.

The appellant then preferred an appeal to a Division Bench of the said High Court. This appeal was also dismissed by Agarwala and Sahai JJ., by their judgment dated 30th August 1955. The appellant then moved and obtained a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution from the said High C

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top