(1.) These two Writ Petitions arise out of an election to the Panchayat of Hirebidri village, Ranebennur, held on 7-1-1957. Writ Petition 161/57 relates to Ward No. 3 and W. P. 162/57 relates to Ward No. 1. Ward No. 3 had 2 general scuts and 1 seat re-served for Scheduled Castes. Petitioners 1 and 2 in Writ Petition 161/57 were elected to the general seats securing respectively 180 and 181 votes, the other two candidates who lost having secured 150 and 149 votes the 3rd petitioner was elected to the reserved seat securing 172 votes, the only other contestant to that seat having secured 145 votes. Ward No. 1 had 3 seats all of which are general seats. The 3 petitioners in Writ Petition 162/57 were elected to these 3 seats having secured 172, 164 and 161 votes respectively, the other 3 unsuccessful contestants securing 141, 136 and 131 votes. On 29-1-1957 the 1st respondent in Writ Petition 161/57 presented before the Prant Officer, Haveri, exercising the powers of Collector, a petition under Section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act for setting aside the election in respect of Ward No. 3 and the 1st respondent in Writ Petition 162/57 filed a similar petition ior setting aside the election in respect of Ward No. 1. By separate orders dated 8-6-1957 the Prant Officer set aside the elections. These Writ petitions are directed against those orders and pray for the issue of appropriate writs to quash those orders.
(2.) The ground on which the elections were attacked, which was accepted by the Prant Officer in setting aside the elections, was the following: The Manlatdar, Haveri. who was the Returning Officer as well as the Electoral Registration Officer, put up a notice at the village Chavadi on 19-11-1956 announcing that a general election would be held on 7-1-1957, and also put up the list of voters together with a notice inviting applications from intending voters for inclusion of their names in the list. The 1st respondent in W. P. 161/57 and the 1st respondent in W. P. 162 of 1957 slate that 27 persons in Ward No. 3 and 18 persons in Ward No. 1 applied for inclusion of their names in the respective lists on 6-1-1957, i.e., the day previous to the day fixed for election and complain that their names were straightway included in the lists without calling for objections giving 7 days' time therefor as required by Rule 26(3) of the Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1956. These respondents contend that all these persons whose names were so included in the voters' lists were not residents of the Hirebidri village at all that the Electoral Registration Officer acted illegally and in contravention of Rule 26(3) mentioned above and that these persons having voted at the election the result of the election has been materially affected to the prejudice of these respondents.
(3.) The Prant Officer wrote to the Mamlatdar, Haveli, to send him a cony of the notice, if any, put up calling for objections to the inclusion of the names of the additional voters. The Mamlatdar's office having reported that the notice so put up was not available or traceable, the Prant Officer concluded that the contention of the respondents that no such notice had been put up was correct. The attention of the Prant Officer was drawn to Section 7-B of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, according to which the Electoral Roll of the State Legislative Assembly under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for the time being in force for such part of the constituency of the Assembly as is included in a Ward or a village shall be the list of voters for such ward or village, and also to Section 7-C(8), according to which for the purpose of determining whether a person is qualified to vote or not the list of voters shall be conclusive evidence subject only to any disqualifications incurred under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. The Prant Officer held that these provisions only meant that the Panchayat Roll was only a corollary to the Assembly Roll and that any error committed in the preparation of the Assembly Roll would be an error committed by an officer charged with carrying out the rules made under Clause (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 108 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act within the purview ot an enquiry by the Collector under Section 9 of the Act. He further held that the voters' list would be conclusive evi-'dence only subject to disqualifications, if any, and that if it could be shown that there was an initial disqualification the list will not be conclusive evidence of the rights purporting to have been exercised in the case.