BHIKHU SAKHARAM KHARATE Vs. B.K. POTDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions arise out of elections to the Village Panchayat of Neral in Kolaba District. Nominations were invited for elections to the Panchayat and the last date for such nominations was November 13, 1957. Scrutiny was fixed for November 15, 1957, and polling was on December 26, 1957. The final results of elections Were declared on December 28, 1957. An application was made by one of the unsuccessful candidates in Ward No. IV for setting aside the election of the petitioner elected from that ward, but whose name appeared in the list of voters for a different ward. The Prant Officer, who had to deal with Election Petitions under the provisions of the Village Panchayats Act of 1933, held that the petitioner, being a voter in a different ward, could not be a candidate of the ward from which he was elected. He, therefore, declared the election of the petitioner null and void. It is from this decision that the present application has been brought to this Court under Article 227.

(2.) THE main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Village Panchayats Act there is no limitation on the right of a voter to offer himself as a candidate for election from other ward. It is contended that even if his name appears as a voter in a particular ward, he could be a candidate for any other ward.

(3.) THE contention, however, is that in Sub -section (2) of Section 7 -C we have the words 'for any ward', and emphasis has been laid on the word 'any', and it is sought to be shown by reference to the words in Section 7 -C (1), where the words are 'for the ward', that the intention was to enable a candidate to offer his candidature for a ward different from the one with regard to which, in the list, his name appears. Though the word used is 'any', it cannot however make any difference in the meaning. The immediately qualifying words are 'to which such list pertains', and if effect is to be given to the contention now advanced, we must disregard the words 'to which such list pertains'. It is not permissible to disregard the words of a statute, and the word 'any' is not such a word that we must disregard the word of the statute and give it a meaning which it does not necessarily possess. It appears to us that though the words are 'any ward', it must still be confined to the ward to which that particular list pertains.