(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 19 - women candidate -has right to contest all the seats-separate selection of woman candidate-when permissible.

It is clear from clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 19 that the selected Councillors are to be selected by single transferable vote by the elected members of the new Council, subject to the condition that at least one of them shall be a woman. It is quite clear from the said clause that there is no bar to more than one woman being selected as Councillors. The condition that there should be at least one woman selected Councillor has apparently been laid down to ensure representation for women amongst the selected Councillors. It can not be construed as derogatory to their general right to be selected as Councillors. On the other hand it is meant to reserve at least one seat for them.

It is obvious that the aforesaid provision contemplates that the women candidates have a right to contest all the seats of the selected Councillors and not only one seat. In construing clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19 it must be borne in mind that the proviso to the said clause is attracted only if the Council fails to select a woman and not otherwise. [Paras 3 & 4]

A general selection should be held open to both men and women candidates and if the selected candidates include a Woman no separate selection of a woman candidate is necessary. Similarly if the number of candidates including a woman is equal to or less than the number of vacancies they shall all be declared duly selected. [Para 7]

(2) Municipalities (Preparations, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (MP) - R. 51 – is contrary to section 19 of the Act. [Para 7]

(3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M P) - S. 19 equality of votes-selection by single transferable votes-equality of votes- election by lot-picked up candidate to be excluded or elected.

To decide by lot means to reach a decision by chance. Usually by putting a number of things in a receptacle, shaking them and then drawing out one or more of them. Usually the thing picked out decides the prize winner. The position may be different where out of a number of candidates we have to exclude one. In such a case the thing picked out may decided which one has to be excluded as in the case contemplated in paragraph XVII. But where there are only two candidates and it has to be decided by lot which of them is to be successful it all depends on which manner of drawing lots is adopted. In the instant case it is not disputed that the officer drawing lots had declared in advance that if the paper bearing the name of a candidate happens to be drawn he will be declared successful. [Para 9]

ORDER

1. This is a revision petition under section 26 of the M.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The general election of the Municipal Council, Vidisha, was held in January 1969. After the election of the Councillors' selection of four councillors by the elected councillors who were 18 in number was held on 20th January 1969. There were in all six candidates, namely Hridaya Mohan Jain, Non petitioner No.4, Vishwa Bandhu petitioner No. 2, Kanhaiyalal Sharma, petitioner No.1, Smt. Sheila Nigam non-petitioner No. 2, Smt. Sharda Shole non-petitioner No.5 and Bhanwarlal non-petitioner No. 3. The selection of the male and female candidates was held separately and Hridaya Mohan Jain, Kanhaiyalal Sharma and Vishwabandhu were declared selected for the male seats while Smt. Sharda Bai was declared selected for female seat.

2. The non-petitioner No. 1 Narayan Singh filed an election petition challenging the aforesaid selection of the councillors. This petition was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha. Being aggrieved there by the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

3. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the selection of councillors for male and female seats separately was in order. In thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document