VEERAPPA SHIDDALINGAPPA VIRUPATHI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions came up before me and Ahmed Ali Khan, J. on September 4, 1963. After hearing Counsel for the parties, we referred the question, whether Rule 11(2) of the Rules framed under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act'') is a valid Rule, to the decision of a Full Bench. This reference became necessary in view of the decision of this Court in (1963) 2 Mys LJ 83, the correctness of which was seriously challenged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. If that decision is held to lay down the law correctly, then Rule 11(2) must be held to be invalid. As we were of the opinion that the decision in question may require reconsideration, we referred the above question of law for the decision of Full Bench.

(2.) The material facts bearing on the question under consideration are as follows: In about the beginning of 1963, a calendar of events for the general election to the Belgaum Municipal Borough was duly published. As per that calendar, the last date for filing the nominations nsthe intending candidates was April 19, 1963. By that date, the petitioner in W.P. No. 714/63 filed his nominations for the ward No. 14, the petitioner in W.P. No. 715/63 for ward No. 4, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 716 and 717 of 63 for ward No. 13 and the Petitioners in W.Ps. Nos. 718 and 719/63 for ward No. 16. On 23-4-1963, after scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected the nominations of the petitioners mentioned above on the sole ground that they were not voters in the wards in which they sought election. In so deciding, he relied on the decision of this Court in Gadigeppa Gurupadappa Vadakkanvar's Case, (1963) 2 Mys. LJ 83. The Petitioner's appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer, to the Deputy Commissioner was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Orders rejecting their nominations.

(3.) It is not denied that the petitioners are registered as voters in the lists pertaining to their wards. But, their nominations have been rejected as mentioned earlier on the ground that they are not registered as voters in the voters list pertaining to the respective wards in which they had sought election. We have to decide whether such a registration is a condition precedent for seeking election under the "Act" or to put it differently whether such a voter in one ward can seek election in any of the wards of the Municipal Borough as claimed by the petitioners.