JAIRAM PANDUJI MAPLE Vs. D.K. ANWIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises an interesting question under the C.P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (I of 1947), and the facts necessary to understand the question are shortly these:

(2.) THE applicant is a resident of a village called Saur, and resides in ward No. 3. An election of a Paneh to the Gram Panchayat from ward No. 3 was to be held, and at this election the applicant and opponents Nos. 5 and 6 were the contestants. The election was held on October 18, 1955, and it resulted in the applicant getting the highest number of votes, so that he was declared elected as a Panch, and this was published on November 17, 1955. On November 28, 1955, an election petition was filed whereby the applicant's election was challenged, and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Amravati, who heard the election petition, declared the applicant's election void, and set aside the same. Pursuant to this order, he directed a fresh election to be held to elect a Panch from ward No. 3 of the Gram Panchayat, Saur. It is the correctness of this order which has been challenged by the applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) NOW , in this particular case, according to the finding of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, the applicant was in arrears of professional tax for the years 1952 -53 and 1953 -54. It is found as a fact that the applicant had paid the taxes amounting to a sum of Rs. 2 for the years 1950 -51 and 1951 -52 on March 27, 1950, and November 18, 1951, respectively. He further found, upon an examination of the proceedings book, that on July 13, 1952, there was a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, directing action to be taken for the recovery of arrears from defaulters, and the learned Extra Assistant Commissioner concluded: All this clearly shows that the respondent Jayaram was in arrears of Gram Panchayat tax due to Gram Panchayat, Saur, not only on the date of the nomination paper or at the time of the election, but even during the pendency of this election petition. It is significant that the record does not give the date of the nomination paper, nor does it furnish the date about the preparation of the electoral roll. One of the points made by Mr. Abhyankar is that the lists whereby, the professional tax was imposed were not published; but the finding of the Extra Assistant Commissioner appears to be not that the lists were not published, but that the lists were not published according to the time schedule given in the rules. Mr. Abhyankar has, therefore, wisely not urged the point that the lists wore not valid on that ground.