JEEWANLAL CHHOTELAL Vs. KUMARI SHANTA PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 26 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities act, 1961 is directed against an order dated January 20, 1970 whereby, on an election petition filed under section 20 of the Act, the selection of councillors of sagar Municipal Council held on January 16, 1969 was set aside.

(2.) THE material facts are these. There were seven seats, including at least one for woman, that had to be filled by selection. After withdrawals, only 8 candidates contested. Six of these were men and two, the applicant mo. 3 and the non-applicant No. 1 were women. All six men were declared duly selected. For the seventh seat considered to be reserved for a woman, the two women candidates were regarded as contestants and, after voting, the applicant No. 3 was declared selected. This procedure of selection denied to the women candidates an opportunity to contest the six seats filled by men candidates and, on that account, it was successfully challenged by an election petition.

(3.) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicants, frankly concedes that, under section 19 (1) (b) of the Act which provides inter alia for number of selected candidates, women candidates are entitled to contest all seats that might be filled by selection. That is also the opinion expressed en passant by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohanlal v. State of M. P. (Misc. Petition No. 4 of 1961, decided en the 4th October 1969 ). It is, however, contended that the procedure adopted in this case is in accordance with Rule 51 of the relevant rules which could not be called in question in an election petition. In my opinion, the contention that Rule 51 itself sanctions such a procedure is not well founded.