Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, is not unreasonable and does implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Headnote:
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ELECTION - RESERVED SEAT FOR WOMEN - RULE 34 OF BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ELECTION RULES, 1959 - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY - ELECTION PETITION - LIMITATION - BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1958, SECTION 10(2), 15(1) - BOMBAY GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1904, SECTION 11.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a woman candidate, challenged the election results of the village panchayat election, where she was declared elected to the reserved seat for women, but lost her seat due to the result of an election petition filed by another candidate, Mahadeo. Mahadeo argued that the Returning Officer erroneously interpreted Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, and declared the results incorrectly. The petitioner contended that Rule 34 was unreasonable and did not implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, was not unreasonable and did implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Court found that Rule 34 ensured one seat from the ward being allotted to the woman candidate for which class a seat had been declared reserved in the ward, while also fulfilling the requirement of electing a popular candidate to fill the general seat. The Court also held that the election petition was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, as the last day for filing the petition was excluded from consideration, and the petition was presented on the 15th day after the result.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, was unreasonable and did not implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958? 2. Whether the election petition was barred by limitation under Section 15(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, and found that it ensured one seat from the ward being allotted to the woman candidate for which class a seat had been declared reserved in the ward, while also fulfilling the requirement of electing a popular candidate to fill the general seat. The Court held that this rule was not unreasonable and did implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2. The Court referred to Section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which provides that when a certain time is allowed for doing an act, the last day of that time is included for the purpose of performing that act. The Court held that filing the petition on the 15th day after the result amounted to filing it within 15 days as required by law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, was not unreasonable and did implement the intention of the legislature expressed in Section 10(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Court also held that the election petition was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT - Deshmukh, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants this Court to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, as Election Tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 33 of 1966, on 8-8 1966.

2. This petition arises out of the elections to the village Panchayat of Sonegaon (Bai), Tahsil and District Wardha, Ward No. 2 of that village is a multi-member constituency with two seats in all. Out of them, one is a reserved seat for women and the other is a general seat. The election took place on 30-5-1966 and the votes were counted on 31-5-1966. In that Ward No. 2, there were only 5 candidates. Out of them, two were women, viz.. the present petitioner Manjulabai and one Anjanabai opponent No. 5. The other three candidates were men who are opponents 4, 6 and 7. The counting disclosed that Anjanabai got 104 votes, Mahadeo got 90 votes. Manjulabai got 30, Govinda pot 32 and Rambhau 1. The Returning Officer declared Anjanabai elected to the general seat as she polled the highest votes at the election and the only remaining women candidate Munjulabai who secured 30 votes was declared elected to the reserved seat for women. Against this declaration of result, Mahadeo, who secured 90 votes, filed an election petition before the Civil Judge on 15-6-1966. The only ground raised in the Election Petition was that after counting the votes correctly, the Returning Officer erroneously interpreted provisions of Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, and declared the results in a wrong manner. The learned Civil Judge accented this submission and interpreting the provisions of Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, he declared Anjanabai elected for a reserved seat and out of the remaining candidates, Myhadeo, who secured the next highest number of votes, was declared as elected for the general seat. Being aggrieved by this order. Manjulabai, who was originally declared elected but who lost her seat due to the result of the Election Petition, has filed this petition.

3. Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, under which the results have been declared is attacked in this case as bring unreasonable and unlawful. The substantive provisions relating to the reservation of seats for women in the Village Panchayat are to be found in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The only reference in that section is that in every Panchayat two seats shall be reserved for women. There is no further guidance as to how this intention should be carried out. The general rule making power also does not specifically point out how this intention shall be carried into effect. In order to implement the provisions of this Act, the State Government has framed rules, called, the Bombay Village Panchyats Elation Rules. 1959, as also the Bombay Village Panchayats (Divisions of Village into Wards and Reservation of Seats for Women. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1966. The rules of 1966 became operative from 12th April of 1966. The disputed election has taken place when both these sets of rules were in force.

4. The relevant part of Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules. 1959, for our purpose, is as follows:--

"34. Returning Officer to declare result of election --_

(1) On completion of the statement showing the number of votes recorded, the Returning Officer shall from amongst the candidates qualified to be chosen to rill a reserved seat, if any declare subject to the provisions of Rule 5 the candidate who has secured the largest number of votes to be elected to fill such reserved seat:

Provided that if in the same Ward there is a reservation of seats for women and for the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes. the result of the seat or seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall be declared first and then the result

Click Here to Read the rest of this document