VENKATASWAMI NAIDU Vs. NACHIMUTHU GOUNDAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for records in O.P. No. 30 of 1958, on the file of the Election Commissioner (District Munsif), Tiruppur, and to quash the order, dated 17th April, 1959, therein.

(2.) THE election to the Village Panchayat of Selakaraichal in Coimbatore District took place on 10th June, 1958. For Ward No. 4 three seats had to be filled up. Six persons filed their nominations for the three seats, amongst whom the petitioners in the two petitions were contesting candidates. There were four more candidates who filed their nominations. But the Election Officer rejected the nomination papers of those four persons, as not being proper, with the result, that for the three seats for which there had to be an election, there were only two candidates, namely, Venkataswami Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu. The Election Officer, therefore, declared both of them to be duly elected, holding the other seat was vacant. This declaration was made on 9th June, 1958. The four persons, whose nominations were rejected, presented a petition to the Election Commissioner challenging the election of the returned candidates on various grounds. The petition was presented on 18th June, 1958. The petition was, however, filed without the deposit of Rs. 25 which had to be made in respect of each of the candidates whose election was challenged under the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Rules relating to the decision of Election Disputes. Even the lodgment schedule form which accompanied the petition was not signed by the advocate presenting the petition. The petition was returned on the same date, the Election Commissioner stating "Returned. Time one week." The petition was re -presented on 25th June, 1958. A chalan was then issued to the petitioner's advocate, and a sum of Rs. 50 was paid on the same date. The election of the returned candidates was challenged on the grounds (1) that there was no due publication of the date of the election, and (2) that the returned candidates were not qualified to stand, they having been defaulters in respect of the taxes payable to the Panchayat. The successful candidates took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petition was not presented in time, and that, it was liable to be dismissed. The Election Commissioner held that there was no merit in the case of the election petitioners, that there was no due publication of the notice relating to the election. He, however, held that the successful candidates were defaulters. As regards the objection of the returned candidates, that the election petition was not filed in time, the Commissioner held that, as the amount of Rs. 50 was paid within the time granted by his order, dated 18th June, 1958, there was no delay in the presentation of the petition. On those findings, the Election Commissioner set aside the election, and directed a fresh election. The successful candidates have filed the above writ petitions, challenging the propriety of the order of the Election Commissioner.

(3.) Rule nisi is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.