JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:—For the purpose of holding election to the Municipal Corporation of Raipur in the month of December, 1978 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No. 23 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Collector of Raipur published the preliminary electoral roll on Sept. 30, 1978 under R. 4 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) promulgated under the Act by the Madhya Pradesh State Government and issued a public notice under R. 4 (1) of the rules calling upon persons whose names had not been included in the electoral roll and who claimed to be included in it and persons who had any objection to the inclusion of the name of any person in the said electoral roll to submit their claims and/or objections within 20 days from the date of the publication of the said notice before Shri K. P. Pande, Dy. Collector, Raipur who had been authorised to pass orders on such claims or objections. It was also notified that claims or objections which had not been preferred as required under the Rules within the prescribed period would be rejected. The final publication of the electoral roll under R. 8 of the Rules was done on Nov. 16, 1978. Thereafter the calendar of events was published notifying that the poll, if necessary, would take place on Dec. 31, 1978 in all the 44 constituencies. Six petitioners including the appellants herein presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on Dec. 28, 1978 requesting the Court to make an order quashing the electoral roll and the calendar of events issued for the purpose of the said election and directing the respondents to refrain from conducting the poll on Dec. 31, 1978. They prayed for a further direction to be issued to the respondents calling upon them to hold the election after preparing the electoral roll afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. They also prayed for the issue of an interim order staying the poll which had been fixed to be held on Dec. 31, 1978. On Dec. 30, 1978, the learned single Judge before whom the case came up for orders directed the issue of notice of the petition and the stay application to the respondents and issued an interim order directing the respondents not to notify the results of the election under R. 46 of the rules pending disposal of the petition. On Dec. 31, 1978, the poll was held and 44 persons were declared elected. Their names were, however, not published under R. 46 of the Rules in view of the interim order made by the Court. Thereafter the successful candidates were also impleaded as respondents and the petition was amended by the inclusion of an additional prayer that the declaration of the results of the election should also be quashed. After the respondents filed their counter-affidavits, the petition was heard and it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on Jan. 20, 1979. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, Ashok Kumar Mishra and Bhagwat Singh Thakur (petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in the petition before the High Court) filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and Purushottam Lal Sharma (petitioner No. 6 before the High Court) filed another petition. On special leave being granted, the above petitions were registered as appeals.

2. One of the grounds on which the appellants challenged the validity of the electoral roll, the calendar of events and the declaration of results of election was that the entire election process had become vitiate on account of the defect in the notice issued under R. 4 (1) of the Rules notifying that claims and objections should be preferred within a period of 20 days from the date of the publication of that notice when sub-r. (3) of R. 4 of the Rules prescribed that such clai