RAMMAYYA VENKAT NARSU BURA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the general election held in 1957, one Shrinivas 2nd respondent was elected a Councillor of the Municipality of Ahmednagar. Thereafter he was elected a member of the standing Committee and the Chairman of the Sanitary Committee. In a general meeting of the Councillors held after the election, certain members of the Municipality were also elected to represent the Municipality on the School Board constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act of 1947. It was said that the 2nd respondent by reason of his being an influential member of the Municipality, was in a position to wield considerable influence in the selection of the members of the School Board.

(2.) It is an undisputed fact that the wife of the 2nd respondent has been working as a teacher for the last several years in School No. 14 conducted among other schools by the Municipality. The petitioner, who is a voter, alleged that the 2nd respondent has a direct interest in her employment with the Municipality and therefore if the 2nd respondent has a direct interest in her employment with the Municipality and therefore if the 2nd respondent continues to be a Councillor there would be a conflict between his duty as a Councillor and his interest in a furtherance of his wife's interests as an employee of the Municipality.

(3.) The petitioner presented an application to the Collector, Ahmednagar District, stating therein the aforesaid facts and praying that it should be declared that respondent No. 2 became disqualified to remain as a Councillor. It was contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the words "becomes subject to any disqualification incurred after the election and therefore since the wife of the 2nd respondent was employed as a teacher several years before the election, S. 28 did not apply and the 2nd respondent could not be declared as having been disqualified. It seems to have also been contended that the petitioner ought to have raised an objection to the nomination of the 2nd respondent as a candidate in the election under S. 12(2)(b), that it would be that section that would apply to the facts of the case and that not having done so, the petitioner was was not entitled to ask for a declaratio under S. 28 of the Act.