NARAYAN BANSI Vs. RATANLAL JANKILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Narayan and Ratanlal, respondant No. 1 hereto, were the two contesting candidates at the general election of the Amravati Town Muncipal Committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward Muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were constesting for a seat from ward No. 10 of the said municipality. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also had filed their nomination papers for that seat but had withdrawn their candidature. Poll was taken on May 1, 1959. As a result of the counting that took place on May 2, the petitioner was declared elected by the Supervising Officer. Before the result of this election was notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, in the Official Gazette, as required by the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, hereinafter called the Act, respondent No. 1 filed an election petition on May 11, 1959, before the District Judge, Amravati, challenging the election of the petitioner. He also presented a separate application praying that an ex parte injunction be issued against the Deputy Commissioner prohibiting him from publishing in the Official Gazette the name of the petitioner as an elected member from ward No. 10. The District Judge, respondent No. 4 hereto, passed an ex parte injunction as prayed for by respondent No. 1 on that day i.e. on May 11, 1959. The petitioner then made an application for vacating the injunction and contested the grant of injunction on several grounds. His application was dismissed and by his order dated May 21, 1959, the District Judge has affirmed the ex parte injunction. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein he prays for an appropriate writ, quashing all the proceedings before the District Judge, the order made by him on May 21, 1959, and a mandate to the District Judge not to proceed with the petition.

(2.) MR . G.R. Mudholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two points before us: (i) that the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of the District Judge against the petitioner was premature inasmuch as it was filed prior to the notification in the Official Gazette by the Deputy Commissioner, the District Judge, therefore, was acting without jurisdiction in entertaining the petition as well as in making the impugned order and (ii) even assuming that the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 was tenable, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the Deputy Commissioner specially when he was not a party to the election petition.

(3.) TURNING to the first contention of the petitioner, Section 20A of the Act which deals with election petitions reads as follows: (1) No election notified under Section 20 shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petition shall be presented to the District Judge... within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election was held and no petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the result of such election was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into and disposed of according to such summary procedure as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. Laying emphasis on the clause 'no petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the result of such election was notified' Mr. Mudholkar argues that the statute in clear terms prohibits institution of an election petition before the result of the election is notified; starting point for presentation of the petition is the date of notification of the result and the posterior limit is the expiry of fourteen days from the date of the notification. Mr. B.R. Mandlekar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand contends that the aforesaid clause only fixes the posterior limit and does not prohibit institution of an election petition prior to the date of notification. According to him, an election petition could be filed at any time after the result of the election has been declared by the Supervising Officer but not later than fourteen days from the date of the notification. He places reliance on two decisions reported in Avi J. Cama v. Banwarilal [1953] Nag. 267 andVenkati v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1954] N.L.J. 644. The decision of rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 thus depends on the true construction of Section 20A of the Act.