1960 Supreme(Raj) 192

Rajasthan High Court, Full Bench
Sarjoo Prosad C.J., Ranawat & Dave, JJ.
Jaiwant Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
Civil Reference No. 10 of 1960
Decided On : August 17, 1960

Headnote:(a) Precedents—Obiter—Alternative reasoning.(b) Municipalities—Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, Sec. 7(1) -Provision mandatory —Areas omitted in first notification but included in final notification—Notification valid to the extent of areas included in first notification.(c) Municipalities—Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act 1951, Secs. 10 and 19—Addition of areas not included in ward—Election invalid to the extent of ward only.(d)—Municipalities—Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, Sec. 19 — Addition of areas not included in ward.(e) Municipalities —Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, Sec. 10—Delay in publication.(f) Precedants—Decisions of—Division Bench binding on single judges.(g) Constitution of India, Art. 226—Alternative remedy—Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, Sec. 12—Matters falling within section.(h) Municipalities—Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, Sec. 19—Scope—Matters falling outside scope.

       The provision of sec. 7 of the Act is of a mandatory nature. A Notification under sec. 7 of the Act was issued by the Government and certain areas that were proposed to be included in the Municipality were specified therein. The inhabitants of these areas got an opportunity of filing objections for the consideration of the Government. The inhabitants of Rangbari and Umed-ganj which were not included in the proposal that was published in Notification of the la/03/1958, had no. reason to think that those areas were also likely to be included in the limits of the Kotah Municipality and they thus had no reason to file objections against that proposal. So far as Rangbari and Umedganj are concerned, it is evident that no Notification under sec. 7 of the Act was published by the Government for including them in the Kotah Municipality. However, by its Notification dated the 16/10/1958, the Government declared Rangbari and Umedganj also as included in the limits of the Kotah Municipality. The Notification of the l6/10/1958 is invalid to the extent the local areas of Rangbari and Umedganj were thereby added to Kotah Municipality, for non-compliance with the provision of sec. 7 of the Act. As regards other areas specified therein for which a Notification under sec. 7 of the Act had already been issued, it would certainly be valid. The Notification of the 16th Oct., 1998 can be split up and the portion of it which is invalid can be separated from the portion which is valid and the entire Notification cannot, therefore, be thrown out as invalid. (Para 29)

       Where on account of inconsistencies between the Notifications under sec. 7 and sec. 5 of the Act, certain small and scarcely populated areas lying at extreme ends of two constituencies were wrongly included in the limits of municipality, the delimitation of wards on the whole as a matter of fact cannot be regarded to have been necessarily affected on that account except that these areas were super-added to wards Election from Wards alone can be held to to have been affected by this illegality of adding. Addition of these areas to Municipality can at the most have a bearing on the election from wards only. (Para 12)

       The effect of wrongly superadding certain areas to the limits of a municipality may be manifold and it may not be correct to say that the only effect which it might produce is that some voters not entitled to vote are permitted to vote at the election. When such areas are added on account of some illegality in the orders under sec. 10, the names of the voters of those areas are included in the voters list and the returning officers cannot, therefore, restrain them from taking part at the election. Participation of the voters of such super-added areas in the election may affect the holding of the election otherwise than merely by the votes of the residents of those areas. Persons may be nominated from such areas to fight the elections, when they would otherwise not be entitled to do so. The weight of the votes and the influence of propaganda by the residents of those areas may tilt the balance of elections one way or the other. The election propaganda on the whole may also be affected for that reason. It is thus not easy to assess correctly the effect of super-adding certain outside areas to a ward on election from that ward. (Para 34)

       It would be wrong to set aside the entire elections from all the wards when the effect of the illegality is obviously confined to two wards only. (Para 35)