Back
1957 Supreme(P&H) 139
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Grover, J.
Lekh Raj
Versus
Cantonment Board, Jullundur Cantonment
Civil Writ No. 978 of 1957,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 12, 1957
The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining proper electoral rolls for valid elections. It held that defective and illegal electoral rolls could render the entire election process void, and that a petitioner could challenge such rolls through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if an alternative remedy through an election petition was available.
Headnote:
ELECTION - CANTONMENT BOARD - ELECTORAL ROLLS - PREPARATION - REVISION - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ELECTION PETITION - REMEDY - FINALITY OF ELECTORAL ROLL - DEFECTIVE ROLLS - EFFECT ON ELECTIONS - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a voter in the Cantonment Board, Jullundur Cantonment, challenged the validity of the electoral rolls prepared for the upcoming elections, alleging irregularities in their preparation and inclusion of ineligible voters. The Executive Officer, without obtaining the Board's decision, ordered the preparation of the rolls, and despite objections and claims, names were added or deleted after the publication of the rolls. The qualifying date for residence was incorrectly mentioned as 1st April 1957 instead of 1st March 1957, and the rolls were revised based on this incorrect date.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable, as the petitioner could not effectively challenge the defective rolls through an election petition after the elections. The finality attached to the electoral roll did not preclude the Court from examining its validity and legality at this stage, especially when the entire election process was being challenged.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable, considering the availability of an alternative remedy through an election petition. 2. Whether the electoral rolls were prepared and revised in accordance with the provisions of the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945, and the Indian Cantonments Act, 1924. 3. Whether the mistake in the qualifying date for residence and the inclusion of ineligible voters rendered the electoral rolls defective and illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petition under Article 226 was maintainable, as the petitioner's challenge was not limited to individual grievances but extended to the entire election process. The finality of the electoral roll did not bar the Court from examining its validity and legality, especially when fundamental defects were alleged. 2. The Court found that the electoral rolls were not prepared and revised in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures. The Executive Officer's unilateral action in ordering the preparation of the rolls without the Board's decision was irregular. The inclusion of names after the publication of the rolls and the mistake in the qualifying date further rendered the rolls defective and illegal. 3. The Court concluded that the defective and illegal electoral rolls would lead to an invalid election process. The entire election could be challenged on this ground, and the petitioner was entitled to seek relief at this stage to prevent such an outcome.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition in part, directing that elections to ward No. V, where the irregularities were most pronounced, should not be held until the electoral roll was prepared in compliance with the Act and Rules. The petition was dismissed in respect of other wards due to lack of specific evidence of irregularities.
A.N.Grover, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an important question with regard to the validity and legality of the holding of elections to the Cantonment Board. Jullundur Cantonment, which are scheduled to be held on the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th of November 1957.
2. The petitioner claims to be a voter duly qualified to vote in the election of members to the Cantonment Board, Jullundur Cantonment. He is entered as a voter in ward No. III in the electoral roll for the elections. He has also been an elected member of the Board for the years 1946 to 1954 and he was Vice-President of the said Board for about three years during that period. According to the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945, as amended and published in Gazette of India, part II, on 2-10-1954, provisions have been made for preparation of the electoral rolls on the basis of which election of the elected members is to take place. Rule 6 provides that the Board, or where a Board is not constituted, the Officer Commanding the Station, shall have prepared by the 1st July of each year an electoral roll in Form I drawn up on street basis, and divided into separate parts for each ward. The revision of electoral rolls is an annual obligation in view of Section 26 of the Indian Cantonments Act, 1924 (Act II of 1924), hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the petitioner the Executive Officer without obtaining the decision of the Board ordered the preparation of the rolls under Rule 6 which he had no power to do. The roll as prepared was published on 1-7-1957 and objections were invited as also claims within a period of twenty days. It is stated that after the publication of the rolls and giving of notice inviting objections and claims under Rule 8 no further names could be added or deleted, but it is alleged that the Executive Officer of the Board included the names of 156 persons in ward No. V and 336 persons in ward No." VI many days alter the roll was published under Rule 8. It is further mentioned that under Section 27 of the Act the Central Government issued a notification dated 6-6-1953 (Annexure B to the petition) by which the 1st day of March was fixed as the "qualifying date." Instead of the said date, the Executive Officer directed that in preparing the list the qualifying date for the purpose of residence of the persons entitled to be recorded as voters should be taken as 1-4-1957. This mistake in preparation of the preliminary went to the root of the matter and no election can fane place on the basis of such Tolls:-
-The validity of the meETING OF THE BOARD HELD ON 10-10-1957, WHICH was presided over by Col. J. Section Sekhon, at which the election programme was drawn up, was also attacked on various grounds set out In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the petition. It is thus asserted by the petitioner, who is contesting the seats from wards III and V, that the elections which are sought to be held on the basis of the rolls as prepared would be wholly illegal and the entire elections will be vitiated. The respondent filed a written statement, dated 19-10-1957, in which certain preliminary matters were raised, apart from objections on merits. It was objected inter alia that the petitioner had An adequate and proper remedy provided by the Electoral Rules and therefore the petition ought not to be entertained. Reliance was placed on Section 24 of the Act for the authority of the Executive Officer to take proper proceedings for the revision of electoral rolls. It was stated that the provisions of Rule 8 had been strictly complied with and that the rolls were revised in accordance with law. Moreover the petitioner had by his conduct accepted the same and it was not open to him to agitate the matter. In paragraph 11 of the written statement some important matters were stated. It was admitted that for the inclusion of the names of the military personnel a letter dated 21-3-1957 (Annexure 1 to the written statement) was issued in w
