BHIMAJI LAXMAN DINDE Vs. C.N. GITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing an order dated July 12, 1'968, made by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, dismissing' an election petition by the petitioners filed under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, No. III of 1959, hereinafter called the said Act. The facts leading to this petition briefly stated are that the six petitioners, respondent No. 15, and respondents Nos. 6 to 14 had filed their nominations for election to Khirwire Village Panchayat in Akola taluka, Ahmednagar District, for various wards in the said village. The said nominations were required to be filed on March 10, 1.967, between the hours of 10.00 a.m. . and 3.00 p.m. The nomination papers of the petitioners and respondent No. 15 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were filed late. There is some dispute as to the exact time at which the nomination papers were filed, but to that we shall revert later. The petitioners and respondent No. 15 preferred an appeal to the Mamlatdar of Akola, respondent No. 2, under Rule 12(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules. The Mamlatdar dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter the petitioners and respondent No. 15 filed in this Court Special Civil Application No. 604 of 1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The said petition was disposed of on January 22, 1968 and an order in the following terms was passed: Petition allowed to be withdrawn as the petition involves disputed questions of feet. No order as to costs. On the same day, an interim injunction which had been issued on March 20, 1967, was dissolved and the Returning Officer, who is respondent No. 1, became from to declare the election of respondents Nos, 6 to 14 as uncontested under Rule15 of the Election Rules. Thereafter a communication dated May 2, 1968 was, according to the petitioners, received by the Panchayat Secretary on May 7, 1968, through the Mamlatdar of Akola declaring that respondents Nos. 6 to 14 had been elected uncontested. The said communication was sent to the Village Panchayat with a direction that it should be published on the notice board of the Panchayat and the fact of publication should be reported. According to the petitioners, the said notice was published by the Village Panchayat by affixing it on its notice board on May 9, 1968. Thereafter on May 22, 1968, the petitioners alone filed before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1968, an election petition under the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act for setting aside the election of respondents Nos. 6 to 14 on several grounds, including non -compliance with some of the Election Rules. The said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on July 12, 1968, Against the said decision, the petitioners have filed the present application.

(2.) BEFORE the learned trial Judge three contentions were taken 011 behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 14. Firstly, that the election petition was required by Section 15 of the said Act to be filed within 15 days of the declaration of the results of election. According to the respondents, the results were declared on May .2, 1968 and the election petition was filed on May 22, 1968 and was, therefore, beyond the time prescribed by law. Secondly, that on the question of rejection of the nomination of the petitioners herein and respondent No. 15, the decision of the Mamlatdar was final under Rule 12(4) of the Election Rules and the learned trial Judge had, therefore, no jurisdiction to go behind that order, and thirdly, that the election petition suffered from multifarious -ness inasmuch as all the petitioners could not combine to file one composite application as the act of rejection of the nomination of each petitioner was a separate cause of action vesting in that petitioner alone. The learned trial Judge upheld all these three contentions of these respondents and dismissed the petition with costs. All these three contentious have been raised before us,

(3.) SECTION 15 of the said Act provides that if the validity of any election of any member of a Panchayat is brought in. question by any candidate at such election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers, such candidate or voter may at any time within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election apply to the Civil Judge for determination of such question. The question, therefore, is as to what should be taken, to be the date of the declaration of the results, whether it should be May 2, 1968, May 7, 3968 or May 9, 1968. Section 10(5) of the said Act provides that the names of elected members shall be published by the Collector in the prescribed manner. Rule .15 of the Election Rules provides for declaration of results of an uncontested election. Rule 34 provides for declaration of results of a contested election. It states that on completion of the statement showing the number of votes recorded, the Returning Officer shall from amongst the candidates qualified to be chosen to fill a reserved seat, if any, declare the candidate who has secured the largest number of votes to be elected to fill such reserved seat. Rule 36 provides for posting of results of election by the Returning Officer. It states that the Returning Officer shall cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted at the village 'Chawdi or at the Village Panchayat Office or at such other place, if any, appointed in that behalf by him. and shall report such names immediately to the Collector.