The division of a Union into electoral wards is related to the manner of election of members and therefore falls within the rule-making power of the Provincial Government under Section 101 (2) (a) of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of Sinha J. , dated 28-7-1953, by which an application made by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE appellants who are eight in number challenged an order by which a Union, called the Mohulla Union, was divided into three electoral wards. Of the eight appellants, four, that is, Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 were members of the old Union Board, of whom two have been elected at an election subsequently held. The remaining four ant residents of the locality and therefore interested in the affairs of the Union.

( 3 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows. On 20-4-1949, a notice signed by the Circle Officer of the area was issued to the President of the Mohulla Union Board and he was asked to submit his proposals as to how best the Union could be divided into three wards of a reasonably equal size and how many members could properly be elected from each. No notice appears to have been taken of that communication. Subsequently on 8-4-1952, a similar notice, signed by the same Officer, was sent to the President. This time the language was more emphatic and it was stated that for the purposes of the ensuing general election, the Union would have to be divided into three wards; therefore, the Union Board was being invited to submit its proposal for the contemplated division in the form set out in the notice itself. The case of the appellants is that on receipt of that notice, the Union Board deliberated on the matter and adopted a resolution on the 13th or 14th of April, 1952, by which a certain manner of dividing the Union into three wards was decided on. It is said that a copy of the relevant resolution was sent to the Circle Officer. On 5-9-1952, the Circle Officer submitted his proposal for the division of the Union into wards to the District Magistrate through the Sub-Divisional Officer. Prior thereto, he claims to have conducted some kind of an enquiry and also considered a representation submitted to him by some pe0ple of the locality, including the Secretary of the Mohulla Congress Committee. The proposal submitted to the District Magistrate is said to have been approved by him on 32-9-1952. Thereafter, a copy of the proposal was sent to the Union Board, which also received a notice that the election would be held on 13-3-1993. After that notice had been received, a petition signed by a fairly large number of persons, including the appellants before us and dated 26-12-1952, was submitted to the District Magistrate and by that petition objection was taken to the division of the Union, as purported to have been made. As no information was received as to the fate of that petition, a second petition, dated 11-2-1953, was submitted for a reconsideration of the matter. Both these petitions were rejected. Thereafter the appellants moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule on 9-3-1953. On 28-7-1953, the Rule was discharged.

( 4 ) IT appears that two points were taken before Sinha J. In the first place, it was contended that the division of the Union into electoral wards was wholly had in law, inasmuch as the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919, contained no provision for such division and inasmuch as Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the Act, under which the division was claimed to have been made, was wholly 'ultra vires' the Act. It was contended, in the second place, that assuming that Rule 2 was a good rule, it left the decision as to whether a Union should be divided into wards or not and if divided, what the number of the wards shall be, to the District Magistrate, but in the present case the District Magistrate had decided nothing, and had merely appended his signature to certain ready-made proposals, submitted to him by his subordinate officers.

( 5 ) SINHA J. , found no merit at all in the second contention. He held tha