MOHAMMAD SADIQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of suitable writs or directions restraining the Respondents from holding a bye -election in village Majitha, Tahsil Patan, under the Central Provices and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the basis of an electoral roll as prepared for Rampura ward said to be defective and imperfect, and directing the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to prepare a valid electoral roll for the aforesaid ward and to hold thereafter the bye -election according to a programme of election drawn in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

(2.) THE Gram Panchayat of Majitha, Tahsil Patan, is a body constituted under the Act, Section 8 of which provides that the Panchas of a Gram Panchayat shall, in accordance with the rules made under the Act, be elected from amongst the persons whose names are entered on the electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayat area. On the resignation of two of the Panchas representing Patel and Rampura wards of the said village, a bye -election to fill the vacancies has to be held as required by Section 24. Accordingly, electoral rolls for the wards purporting to have been prepared in accordance with the rules made under the Act were prepared and a programme for holding a bye -election on the basis of those rolls was published. The Petitioners' contention is that the electoral roll for the Rampura ward is not valid for the reason that after the publication of the roll under Rule 1 of the Rules regulating the publication of electoral rolls under Section 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Act the Tahsildar, who had been appointed to hear claims and objections under Rule 3 of the said rules, did not decide the claims and objections preferred as required by Rule 5; that this failure -deprived the applicants of an opportunity to substantiate their objection to the inclusion of names of ten persons in the roll who had no residence in the ward and who were, therefore, not qualified to be included in the electoral roll; and that the total number of voters in the ward being 49, the illegal inclusion of the ten voters altogether impaired the validity of the roll. The further objection of the Petitioners is that under Rule 1 of the Rules regulating nominations for elections under Section 8, the date and place for the filing of nomination paper of candidates and for the scrutiny of nomination papers and date or dates of polling have to be announced within the Gram Panchayat area at least seven days before the date fixed for filing the nomination papers; that according to the programme drawn up by the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the date fixed for the filing of nomination papers was 25th August 1962 and the announcement was made by beat of drum on 18th August 1962; that thus there was no interval of "at least seven days" between the date of announcement and the date fixed for filing the nomination papers; and that this violation of the mandatory provision contained in the aforesaid rule rendered all the nominations illegal and void.

(3.) ON the date fixed for hearing claims and objections aforesaid any person whose name is not entered in the roll and any person whose name is in the roll, and who objects to the inclusion of the name of any person in the roll, may prefer either orally or in writing, a claim or objection to the officer specified in the notice.