KASTURCHAND KISANLAL CHANDAK Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 6 at Katol, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. He contested the municipal election which took place on June 3, 1967. He was elected as a member and the election results were published in the Gazette on June 9, 1967. On June 19, 1967, respondent No. 2 filed an election petition in the Court of the District Judge at Nagpur. In that petition it was alleged that the petitioner was disqualified from becoming a member of the Municipal Council under the provisions of Section 16(1) (h) of the Maharastra Municipalities Act, 1965. It was also alleged that the petitioner had imported one tin of paint sometime in September 1965. A bill in that behalf was sought to be served on 29-8-1966 but he declined to accept it. Hence the same bill, which is now Exhibit 16, was sent under registered cover which he received on September 2, 1966. The dues under that bill were not paid during the entire period when the petitioner sought election and got elected. The bill has been paid on June 14, 1967. In view of these facts it was alleged that the petitioner was not qualified to become a councilor as provided by Section 16(1) (h) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act.

(2.) Most of the facts were not disputed by the petitioner. He admitted that a tin of paint was imported by him in 1965. Though the attempt to present the notice on 29-8-1966 was denied by him, he admitted the receipt thereof under a registered cover on 2-9-1966. Whether the notice was in fact tried to be presented on 29-8-1966 is of no consequence in view of the dates which are already mentioned. He further alleged that this notice was not a legal and valid notice under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. It is a condition precedent to serve a proper notice under that section before a person becomes disqualified from contesting the election. The other defence was that assuming that that was sought to be a notice under Section 150, it does not satisfy the requirements of that section. The various ingredients, which should have been mentioned in such a notice, do not find place in Exhibit 16. The disqualification indicated in Section 16 (1) (h) is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. It was also pleaded that the notice under Section 150 must strictly comply with all the requirements thereof and it cannot be accepted that substantial compliance would be enough.

(3.) On these pleadings, the learned District Judge as Election Tribunal under the Municipalities Act came to the conclusion that Exhibit 16 must be deemed to be a notice under Section 150 of the Maharastra Municipalities Act. He held that Section 150 does not prescribe any form. In the absence of any form if there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 150, that would amount to a service of valid notice. Having come to that conclusion, the learned District Judge set aside the election of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, he has filed this petition.