Back
1966 Supreme(MP) 27
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
P.V. Dixit, C.J. and K.L Pandey, J.
Prahlad Dutt
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
M.P. No. 133 of 1965
Decided on : 2-3-1966
G.L. Oza for petitioner;
G.M. Chaphekar for five respondents;
K.K. Dubey, Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 4
Headnote:(1) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) - Ss. 10, 13 and 14 - Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councilors) Rules, 1962 (M.P.) - Rr. 4, 6 & 8 - electoral rolls for Municipal Election can be amended even after their final publication if Assembly Rolls are amended.
The assembly rolls relatable to the area comprised in the various wards of any Corporation functioning under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act have to be "adopted" for that Corporation. The use of the large word "adopt" implies that, for all practical purposes, the assembly rolls have to be regarded as the electoral rolls for the Corporation. By virtue of the provisions of section 13, the authority appointed under section 10 (c) (i) may, even on its own, amend any entry in certain circumstances. That authority must also, as soon as may be, make in the electoral rolls amendments similar to those in the assembly rolls. The publication of the assembly rolls mentioned section 14 (1) is thus subject to such alterations, as might be made both under rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 and by virtue of section 13 and 14 (2) and only after all such alterations, additions and modifications will the assembly rolls be the election rolls for the Corporation "prepared in accordance with this Act". Rule 6 postulates and provides for a situation in which no action has been taken in accordance with section 13 and 14 (2) of the Act. Rule 8 (2) cannot be regarded as limiting the effect of section 13 and 14(2) of the Act. Municipal rolls can therefore be amended even after their final publication to conform to Assembly Rolls. AIR 1964 Pat. 459 distinguished. [Para 8 and 10]
(2) Interpretation of Statutes – Rules - construction of.
A rule making body cannot frame rules in conflict with, or derogating from the statute under which they are framed and, whenever the rules framed are broad in their import and therefore inconsistent with the statute, they must yield to, and be construed in such a way as to be consistent with the provisions of the statute. [Paras 8 and 9]
Pandey, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the election of the councilors who have been returned from the 48 wards of the Indore Municipal Corporation as a result of the general elections under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), held in the last quarter of 1964 and the first quarter of 1965. By Misc. Petitions Nos. 130, 131 and 132 of 1965, elections held In Wards Nos. 10, 9 and 33 have been separately challenged on identical grounds. This order shall dispose of all these petitions.
2. The programme of general elections fixed in accordance with the requirements of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection (Councilors) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules) was as follows:-
Date of publication of electoral rolls 30 September 1964
The last date for receiving claims and objections 30 October 1964
The last date for decision on claims and objections 13 November 1964
The last date for filing appeal against decisions on claims and 20 November 1964
objections
The last date for disposal of appeals arising out of the
orders passed on claims and objections 27 November 1964
Final publication of the electoral rolls 7 December 1964
The last date for final nomination papers 21 December 1964
Scrutiny of nomination papers 30 December 1964
The Last date for withdrawal of nomination papers 7 January 1965
The date of poll 24 January 1965
It is not disputed that this programme was adhered to except in regard to one particular matter which, as we would show immediately, is the subject matter of the present controversy.
3. It was alleged that, after the last date fixed for receiving claims and objections and even after the final publication of the electoral rolls on 7 December 1964, claims and objections continued to be received and decided with the consequence that supplementary electoral rolls were published for several wards on 20 and 21 January 1965 and the names of as many as 12,804 voters were added to the final electoral rolls. However, it is not now disputed that, after 7 December 1964, numerous persons from various wards, including Wards Nos. 9, 10 and 33, had applied to the Electoral Registration Officer appointed under section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for inclusion of their names in the Assembly Rolls. B.E. Nilkanth, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mhow, who was the Electoral Registration Officer at that time, dealt with those claims and objections. After following the prescribed procedure and making due enquiry, he passed orders for correcting the Assembly Rolls which were corrected accordingly between 7 December 1964 and 19 January 1965. Following this, the Collector made in accordance with section 14 (2) of the Act similar amendments in the final electoral rolls and issued on 20 and 21 January 1965 the so-called supplementary electoral rolls.
4. According to the petitioners, two of whom other three had unsuccessfully contested the elections and 33, the names of 12,804 voters were illegally included in the final electoral rolls on 20 and 21 January 1965 in contravention of the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules. The petitioners claimed that, in view of the provisions of section 441-B (1) (d) (iv), they could not call in question by means of election petitions any election on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder relating to preparation of the list of voters. They have, therefore, moved this Court for quashing, as already indicated the election of the councilors returned to the Indore Municipal Corporation.
5 In answer, the respondents contested the claim that the provisions of section 9 or section 10 of the Act or of Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules were either contravened or not observed. According to them, the
