ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of holding election to the Municipal Corporation of Raipur in the month of December, 1978 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No. 23 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)', the Collector of Raipur published the preliminary electoral roll on Sept. 30, 1978 under R. 4 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') promulgated under the Act by the Madhya Pradesh State Government and issued a public notice under R. 4 (1) of the rules calling upon persons whose names had not been included in the electoral roll and who claimed to be included in it and persons who had any objection to the inclusion of the name of any person in the said electoral roll to submit their claims and/or objections within 20 days from the date of the publication of the said notice before Shri K. P. Pande, Dy. Collector, Raipur who had been authorised to pass orders on such claims or objections. It was also notified that claims or objections which had not been preferred as required under the Rules within the prescribed period would be rejected. The final publication of the electoral roll under R. 8 of the Rules was done on Nov. 16, 1978. Thereafter the calendar of events was published notifying that the poll, if necessary, would take place on Dec. 31, 1978 in all the 44 constituencies. Six petitioners including the appellants herein presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on Dec. 28, 1978 requesting the Court to make an order quashing the electoral roll and the calendar of events issued for the purpose of the said election and directing the respondents to refrain from conducting the poll on Dec. 31, 1978. They prayed for a further direction to be issued to the respondents calling upon them to hold the election after preparing the electoral roll afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. They also prayed for the issue of an interim order staying the poll which had been fixed to be held on Dec. 31, 1978. On Dec. 30, 1978, the learned single Judge before whom the case came up for orders directed the issue of notice of the petition and the stay application to the respondents and issued an interim order directing the respondents not to notify the results of the election under R. 46 of the rules pending disposal of the petition. On Dec. 31, 1978, the poll was held and 44 persons were declared elected. Their names were, however, not published under R. 46 of the Rules in view of the interim order made by the Court. Thereafter the successful candidates were also impleaded as respondents and the petition was amended by the inclusion of an additional prayer that the declaration of the results of the election should also be quashed. After the respondents filed their counter-affidavits, the petition was heard and it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on Jan. 20, 1979. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, Ashok Kumar Mishra and Bhagwat Singh Thakur (petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in the petition before the High Court) filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and Purushottam Lal Sharma (petitioner No. 6 before the High Court) filed another petition. On special leave being granted, the above petitions were registered as appeals.

(2.) One of the grounds on which the appellants challenged the validity of the electoral roll, the calendar of events and the declaration of results of election was that the entire election process had become vitiate on account of the defect in the notice issued under R. 4 (1) of the Rules notifying that claims and objections should be preferred within a period of 20 days from the date of the publication of that notice when sub-r. (3) of R. 4 of the Rules prescribed that such claims and objections could be preferred within 30 days from the date of publication of that notice. It was alleged that by reason of a shorter period being fixed for entertaining claims and objections, a large number of people who could have filed claims and objections were prevented from preferring them within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice which was the prescribed period. It was alleged that petitioner No. 5 had filed a claim to include his name in the electoral roll on Oct. 19, 1978 and that was rejected by the Dy. Collector without following the procedure prescribed for the purpose. It was also alleged that on Oct. 20, 1978, 34 persons mentioned in Annexure P-7 approached the Dy. Collector to entertain their claim for inclusion in the electoral roll and he refused to receive their application. It was contended that on account of non-compliance with R. 4 (3) of the Rules, which was mandatory, the entire election process held on the basis of the defective electoral roll became a nullity and that therefore, the declaration of results of all the 44 successful candidates was liable to be quashed.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it was pleaded that while it was true that the period of 20 days had been mentioned in the notice issued under R. 4 (1) of the Rules, it was open to all the persons who were interested in preferring claims or objections to file them within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice under R. 4(1). It was pleaded that pursuant to the notice published under R. 4 (1) of the Rules only four claims including that of petitioner No. 5 were received by the Dy. Collector, that all the applicants were asked to appear on Oct. 30, 1978 to substantiate their claim and that the applications were disposed of on Oct. 30, 1978. The claim of petitioner No. 5 was rejected as no evidence in support of his claim was produced before the Dy. Collector. It was further pleaded that no other claims or objections were preferred either on Oct. 20, 1978 or on any other subsequent date. The allegation that 34 persons had approached the Dy. Collector requesting him to receive their applications for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll on Oct. 20, 1978 was denied. They further pleaded that the authorities would have taken action to correct the error in the notice issued under R. 4 (1) of the Rules granting 20 days' time to prefer claims or objections if it had been brought to their notice by the petitioners immediately after it was noticed by them. The petitioners were not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution on account of the inordinate delay involved in the presentation of the writ petition.