SHIAM KISHORE Vs. MADAN GOPAL MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts are these : The petitioner and respondents Nos. I to 9 were candidates for the office of President of the Municipal Board of Sitapur at an election to be held on the 26th October, 1953. They filed their nomination papers on the preceding 5th October. Objection was then taken by the ninth respondent to the nomination of the first respondent on the ground that the latter had not attained the age of thirty years, the qualifying age for election for residents under Section 43 (4) of the Municipalities Act, 3916. The Returning Officer thereupon held a summary enquiry under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities (Conduct of Election, of Presidents) Rules 1953, and on the 7th October he rejected the nomination paper of the first respondent. Thereafter respondents Nos. 4 to 9 withdrew their candidatures. The election was accordingly fought between the petitioner and second and third respondents, the petitioner being declared elected.

(2.) On the 12th December, 1953, the first respondent filed an election petition on the ground that his nomination had been improperly rejected. The Election Tribunal recorded evidence with regard to the age of the first respondent and came to the conclusion that the latter had attained the age of thirty years. It was accordingly of opinion that the first respondent's nomination paper had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and toy an order dated the 9th December, 1954, it allowed the petition, set aside the election of the petitioner and declared a casual vacancy to exist.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed the petition which is now before us. He challenges the validity of the order of the Election Tribunal on three grounds. He says, first, that the rules regarding election petitions against the President of a Municipal Board, known as the Election Petition (Presidents of Municipal Boards) Rules, 1949 are invalid; secondly, in the alternative, that the amendments to those rules which came into force on the 9th November, 1953, had no retrospective effect and, thirdly, that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to arrive at a finding as to the age of the first respondent on the basis of additional evidence recorded by it. It is convenient to consider these submissions in that order.