MAHILA KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. MAHILA SAKUN BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 26 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) AFTER the election of the elected Councillors of the Municipal Council, Morena, in 1968, a meeting was held for the selection of the selected Councillors. At the said meeting, there were two candidates, namely, Manila Krishna Kumari and Mahila sakun Bhatnagar for the seat to be filled by a woman candidate. Mahila Krishna kumari (petitioner before this Court) was selected. Her selection was, however, challenged by an election petition filed by Rajaram (non-applicant No. 2) before the District Judge, Morena. The contention of Rajaram was that the nomination paper of Mahila Krishna Kumari was wrongly accepted as she failed to express her willingness in writing to serve as a Councillor, to the Chairman of the meeting as required by Rule 49 of the M. P. Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and publication of Electoral Rolls. Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules 1962. He therefore prayed that the selection of Mahila Krishna Kumari be set aside and mahila Sakun Bhatnagar (non-applicant No. 1) may be declared duly selected as she was the only other rival candidate. That petition was allowed and the selection of Mahila Krishna Kumari was set aside. She has, therefore, filed this revision petition against the order of the District Judge, Morena, in the election petition against her.

(3.) THE main question for consideration, in this case is whether the petitioner has duly complied with the provisions of Rule 49, which is reproduced below for facility of reference:-" 49. Nomination. The Chairman shall call upon the Councillors present to propose names of candidates for selection, of which at least one shall be that of woman. No. person's name shall be proposed unless- (i) he/she is voter and not otherwise disqualified to be councillor by or under the Act, and (ii) he/she has expressed his/her willingness, in writing, to serve as a Councillor, and such writing has been given to the chairman of the meeting. Every candidate must be nominated in writing and the nomination papers must be signed by two of the newly elected Councillors as proposer and seconder. " the said rule lays down that no person's name shall be proposed unless he/she has expressed his/her willingness in writing to serve as Councillor and such writing has been given to the Chairman of the meeting. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that this provision is mandatory and it requires that the willingness in writing of a candidate must be conveyed to the Chairman before his name is proposed and since this has not been done, the nomination paper was liable to be rejected. This contention prevailed in the lower Court and we have to see if the view taken by that Court is correct.