RAMLAL BABULAL CHAURASIA Vs. COLLECTOR SATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ramlal seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the calling of the meeting of the Municipal Council on 26-5-1973 for election of the President and Vice presidents by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maihar, vide Annexure 'a' and to quash the notification of the Collector. Annexure 'b' in so far it defines the term of office of the petitioner as President till 20th May, 1973.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated. General election of the Municipal Council. Maihar, was held on 20-7-1970. Election of the President and the two vice-Presidents took place on 11-5-1971. The petitioner was elected President and the appointment was notified on 21-5-1971. The petitioner entered upon his office from the date of this notification. The rival candidate Laxmi Narayan Saxena challenged the election of the petitioner as President before the District Judge having jurisdiction. His petition was dismissed. He came up in revision to this Court which was partly allowed. One ballot paper was held invalid and, therefore, could not be counted. The result was that the two candidates had secured equal number of votes. This Court directed that the result must be declared in accordance with Rule 12 of the Madhya pradesh Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules. 1962. The presiding authority under Rule 12, was required to draw lot and declare the result. Though the revision was decided on 5-1-1973, the lots were drawn on 14-5-1973. The lot fell on the petitioner and he was declared elected. He became entitled to an appropriate notification in his favour as contemplated in Section 45 of the madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention before us is that the decision of the High Court in revision, in consequence, wipes out the earlier notification dated 21-5-1971 where under the petitioner was appointed as the President; reopens the election process at the state where the presiding authority finding the candidates securing equal votes, has to resort to Rule 12 and draw lots for declaration of the result. The election process would validly come to an end only upon the lots being drawn. What was done earlier would be of no consequence. It was an invalid appointment and the High Court had declared it void. According to the petitioner, he has been validly elected President on 14-5-1973 and under the provisions of Section 43 (2) he became entitled to hold Office for a period of two years from the date on which he entered upon his Office (the date of entry into Office would be the date of tile fresh notification as contemplated by section 45 of the Act ).