The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether the office of Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) is an 'office of profit under Government', and the court's conclusion that the post of MLA is not an office of profit under the government.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision filed under section 441-F of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'), is directed against the order dated 11-4-2002 passed by XII Additional District Judge, Indore in election petition No. 14/200, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the petition.

( 2 ) IT is a case of direct election to the post of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, indore. Admittedly, the election to the office of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Indore was notified on 25-11-1999 and on 2-12-1999. The last date for filing the nomination was 3-12-1999. The date for scrutiny of nomination was 6-12-1999 and the last date for withdrawal of nomination paper was 22-12-1999. The election was held on 27-12-1999 and the result was declared on 3-1-2000. Respondent No. 3, Kailash Vijayvargiya, amongst other non-applicants, contested the election and was declared elected as Mayor, indore. Undisputedly, on the date of filing of the nomination paper i. e. on 3-12-1999 the respondent No. 3 was sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from Assembly area No. 221 (Indore Assembly No. 2) and was holding the office of Member of Legislative Assembly. After declaration of the result, the petitioner, a voter in the said election, filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 3 as Mayor, indore. In the petition it was contended that as per the provisions contained under Article 191 (l) (a) of the Constitution of India, the returned candidate was a disqualified person for filing the nomination as he was holding the office of Member of the Legislative Assembly at the time of filing the nomination which is an office of profit under government.

( 3 ) IT was further contended in the petition that the elections conducted on the basis of an electoral roll which was prepared in the year 1994 was null and void not only because the electoral roll was not notified in the gazette but it was not correct as most of the voters were either expired or were not available, moreso, the names were inserted in more than one ward. It was further contended that as the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 were not followed before holding the election, the division of wards was not in conformity with law. It was further contended that a person cannot hold two offices at a time and that since the office of Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) as also the office of Mayor are offices of profit, the election of respondent No. 3 as mayor is bad in law.

( 4 ) AFTER filing reply by the respondents, as many as seven issues were framed by the trial Court. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the question whether non-applicant No. 3 was entitled to contest the election of Mayor while holding the post of MLA and whether on this ground his election as Mayor should be quashed? Both these issues were decided as preliminary issues against the applicant along with issue No. 4 by order dated 12-3-2001. Similarly, issue No. 4 was to the effect that whether non-applicant No. 3 be restrained from holding the post of Mayor ? issue No. 5 was whether non-applicants, except non-applicant No. 3, are not necessary parties in the petition. This issue was also decided in favour of the applicant by order dated 5-10-2000. Issue No. 6 was to the effect that whether electoral roll can be challenged in the election petition. This issue was also decided in favour of the applicant by order dated 17-4-2001. Only issue nos. 3 and 7 were remained undecided. But by the impugned order dated 11-4-2002, the learned trial Court answered all questions relating to issue Nos. 3 and 7 against the applicant and has held that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was some interpolation in the voters list with the connivance of returned candidate respondent no. 3. By order dated 12-3-2001 and by impugned order dated 11-4-2002, the learned adj while deciding the election petition has held that the office of MLA is not an 'office of pr