Back
1965 Supreme(P&H) 277
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, J.
Lekh Raj
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ No. 2132 of 1965,
Decided On : DECEMBER 2, 1965
The Municipal Election Rules, as amended in 1959, provided a detailed procedure for the preparation of electoral rolls for municipal elections, and these rules were mandatory and had to be strictly followed.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL ELECTION - PREPARATION OF ELECTORAL ROLLS - REVISING AUTHORITY'S ORDER DELETING NAMES OF PETITIONERS FROM ELECTORAL ROLLS WITHOUT NOTICE - VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ORDER VOID AB INITIO - ELECTION PROGRAMME PUBLISHED LESS THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE FIRST DATE SPECIFIED - INVALID - ELECTION RULES MANDATORY - DEFECTS IN ELECTION PROCEEDINGS TO BE REMEDIED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the election proceedings for the Municipal Committee of Kot Kapura, alleging irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and the publication of the election programme.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Revising Authority's order deleting the petitioners' names from the electoral rolls without notice was void ab initio and could not be sustained even if the petitioners failed to avail of an alternative remedy. 2. The Revising Authority's dismissal of objections filed by two petitioners on the ground that their names were not in the provisional list of the ward in question was upheld. 3. The inclusion of certain persons' names in the electoral rolls of two separate wards violated Rule 8-C of the Municipal Election Rules and had to be corrected. 4. The election programme was published less than 10 days before the first date specified, which was a violation of Rule 3(3) of the Municipal Election Rules and rendered the election programme invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revising Authority's order deleting the petitioners' names from the electoral rolls without notice was valid. 2. Whether the Revising Authority's dismissal of objections filed by two petitioners on the ground that their names were not in the provisional list of the ward in question was justified. 3. Whether the inclusion of certain persons' names in the electoral rolls of two separate wards violated Rule 8-C of the Municipal Election Rules. 4. Whether the election programme was published in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Municipal Election Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Municipal Election Rules, as amended in 1959, provided a detailed procedure for the preparation of electoral rolls for municipal elections. Rule 8-H required the Revising Authority to give notice of objections to the electors who might be affected by the order to be passed. Failure to provide such notice violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the Revising Authority's order void ab initio. 2. Rule 8-G(3) provided that no person could raise objections to any name contained in a roll unless their name was already included in that roll. The Revising Authority's dismissal of objections filed by two petitioners on the ground that their names were not in the provisional list of the ward in question was, therefore, justified. 3. Rule 8-C prohibited the registration of any person in more than one constituency. The inclusion of certain persons' names in the electoral rolls of two separate wards violated this rule and had to be corrected. 4. Rule 3(3) of the Municipal Election Rules required the election programme to be published not less than 10 days before the first date specified in the programme. The publication of the election programme in this case, with only 9 days intervening between the date of publication and the first date specified, violated this rule and rendered the election programme invalid.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Revising Authority's order deleting the petitioners' names from the electoral rolls, the election programme issued by the Government, and directed the revision and correction of the electoral rolls to ensure compliance with Rule 8-C of the Municipal Election Rules.
R.S.Narula, J.
1. The thirteen petitioners in this case having different causes of action and different complaints against the proceedings for the holding of elections to the Municipal Committee of Kot Kapura, tehsil Faridkot, district Bhatinda, have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the election proceedings in certain respects.
2. In exercise of the powers confered by Section 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act 3 of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Municipal Election Rules, 1952 were framed by the Governor of Punjab. By notification dated 13th August, 1959 the said Rules were amended. Rules 8-A to 8-K were added by the said Amended Rules so as to provide for a detailed procedure for the preparation of electoral rolls for municipal elections under the Act. Rules 8-A, 8-B, 8-C, 8-G, 8-H and 8-I, out of the above-mentioned added Rules are relevant for the decision of this case and are, therefore, quoted below :-
"8-A. Preparation of rolls :-
(1) When a direction is given by the State Government under the proviso to rule 8, the Deputy Commissioner shall, under the superintendence of the Director of Elections (Local Bodies), cause to be prepared a roll for each constituency of the Municipality in accordance with these rules.
(2) The roll shall be prepared in such form and in such language or languages as the State Government or the Director of Elections (Local Bodies) may direct.
8-B. Disqualification for registration in roll :-
(1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in a roll, if he (a) is not a citizen of India; or
(b) is of unsound mind, and stands so declared by a competent Court; or
(c) is for the time being disqualified for voting under the laws relating to corrupt and illegal practices and other offences in connection with Municipal Election.
8-C. No person to be registered in more than one consistency :-
No person shall be entitled to be registered in the roll for more than one constituency and no person shall be entitled to be registered in the roll for any constituency more than once.
8-D ... ... ... ... ... ...
8-E ... ... ... ... ... ...
8-F ... ... ... ... ... ...
8-G. Manner of making and lodging claims and objections :-
(1) A claim or objection shall be addressed to the Revising Authority specified in the notice referred to in rule 8-F, and shall be presented to that authority or be sent by registered post to that authority.
(2) A claim shall be signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the roll and shall, unless sent by post, be presented by the claimant himself, or by an agent authorised by him in writing in this behalf.
(3) No person shall prefer an objection to the inclusion of any name in the roll unless his name is already included in that roll.
(4) When objection is made to the inclusion in the roll of any person whose name appears therein, or to any particular in any entry in the roll, such objection shall contain in respect of such person or entry, as the case may be all the particulars entered in the roll.
(5) The Revising Authority shall maintain a register of claims in Form 1A and register of objections in Form 1B in which he shall cause to be entered at the time of its receipt particulars of every claim or objection, as the case may be, received.
(6) Any claim or objection which is not lodged within the period prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner in the notice published with the roll under rule 8-E, or in the manner therein specified, or is lodged by a person not entitled to lodge the same, shall be rejected.
8-H. Notice of claims and objections - Where a claim or objection is not rejected under sub-rule (6) of rule 8-G, the Revising Authority shall cause one copy of the objection served on the person to whom objection is taken, provided that if an objection or claim is presented by a person from whom he is not authorised to receive it under rule 8-F, he shall return it to the person presenting it for presentation t
