VAKKAT BAPPU AND ORS. Vs. THE ELECTION AUTHORITY, VIZ., THE REGIONAL INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND LOCAL BOARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent, the Election Authority, from holding the election for Presidentship of the Marancherry Panchayat in accordance with the orders issued on 6th November, 1953.

(2.) MARANCHERRY Panchayat is a minor panchayat governed by the provisions of Madras Act X of 1950 and the rules framed thereunder. The Election Authority notified 22nd October, 1953, as the date on which the elections were to be held for the membership of the panchayat as well as the office of the President of the Panchayat. I am concerned now only with the question of the regularity of the proceedings adopted by the Election Authority to conduct the election to the office of the President of the Panchayat. The first notice issued by the Election Authority directed that all the voters entitled to vote and whose names were borne on the electoral rolls of the panchayat as a whole should assemble at the places specified. The notice specified five different places for the five different wards of the Marancherry Panchayat. Whether a voter of ward No. I for instance had a right under this notice, to assemble along with others in ward No. II and vote for the President, the notice left obscure. But I am not resting my decision on this feature of the case; nor am I expressing any opinion on the question whether to conduct the election of the office of the President, the Election Authority can assemble voters in different places within the same panchayat. On 22nd October, 1953, after the nominations had been received, votes were counted by show of hands as required by the rules in all the wards other than ward No. II. Apparently the election of the President could not be completed on 22nd October, 1953, i.e., by counting the votes of the electors who had assembled in the place specified in ward No. II. What the Election Officer did was to issue a further notice on 6th November, 1953, directing the electors who were residents of ward No. II to assemble at the place specified in ward No. II on 18th November, 1953, so that the votes of those so assembled could be counted. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed this application to quash the proceedings of the Election Authority, i.e., notice, dated 6th November, 1953.

(3.) RULE 9 provides: