MANAKLAL LILA SAO Vs. COLLECTOR SEONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a rate-payer and a voter in Bhaironganj ward of Seoni Municipality, and a sitting Councillor, seeks a direction restraining the Collector, Seoni, from giving effect to the notifications dated the 8th October 1965 and 11th October 1965 issued under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), notifying the election and selection of the respondents 2 to 25 the new Councillors. He also prays for the issue of writs of quo warranto against the respondents Nos, 2 to 25 for ousting them from the office of councillors.

(2.) THE material facts are that the Municipal Council, constituted for Seoni under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, was functioning when the Act of 1961, repealing inter alia the Act of 1922, came into force, and continued to function thereafter under section 2 (2) (i) of the Act as a body deemed to have been constituted under the Act of 1961. THE term of this "deemed" Council expired on 9th October 1963. But since then it has continued to function by virtue of clause (b) of the proviso to section 2 (2) (ii) of the Act, which provides that the term of a municipal committee or a municipal council, constituted under any Act repealed by the Act of 1961, shall, notwithstanding the expiration of its term, be deemed to extend to and expire with, the day immediately preceding the date appointed under section 55 (2) of the Act of 1961 for the first meeting of the Council constituted under the Act for the first time in its place. THE new Municipal Council, under the Act of 1961, consists of twenty elected Councillors and five selected Councillors, including a woman. After the publication of electoral rolls on 20th May 1965, polling for election of Councillors was held on 20th August 1965. THE selection of Councillors, as required by sections 19 and 55 (1) of the Act and the rules made thereunder, was held on 21st September 1965, THEre-after the names of the elected and selected Councillors were notified on 8th and 11th October 1965 by the impugned notifications as required by section 45 of the Act.

(3.) IN reply, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 11 to 16, 18, 19 and 21 to 24, contended that the expression "general election", as used in the Ordinance, means the process by which the "elected Councillors", spoken of in section 19 (1) (a) of the Act, are returned, and does not include proceedings for selecting the Councillors referred to in section 19 (1) (b); that the general election concluded when, after the counting of ballot papers, the Supervising Officer certified the result of the election as required by rule 41 (b) or rule 45 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); that the notification of the result of election under section 45 of the Act, read with rule 46 of the Rules, was not a part of "general election" as under-stood in the sense referred to earlier; and that, therefore, the Ordinance did not bar in the present case the selection of Councillors after 20th September 1965 and the notification under section 45 of the Act read with rules 46 and 53 of the Rules, of the elected and selected Councillors. Learned counsel referred us to section 55 (1) of the Act to show that the expression "general election" did not include the selection of Councillors under section 19 (1) (b). It was also said that section 39 (1) of the Act pointed to the conclusion that the process of general election did not embrace the step of notifying the declaration of the election under section 45. Learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents further submitted that in fact the Ordinance had no applicability in the case of general election of Councillors of a municipal body, such as the one in the present case, constituted under the C. P. and Berar Municipalitis Act, 1922, and continued under section 2 (2) (i) of the Act of 1961 as a body deemed to have been constituted under that Act. IN this connection, it was urged that the expression "general election", as defined in section 2 (1) of the Ordinance, meant an election to fill the office of a Councillor consequent on the expiry of the normal term fixed for the local authority under the law specified in sub-section (2) of section 2 relating to the local authority; and that the normal term of the 'deemed' Municipal Council, Seoni, was fixed under the repealed Act of 1922 under which it was constituted, and the expression "law relating to local authority", as defined by section 2 (2), did not include the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that as section 3 (2) of the Ordinance extended the term of the Municipal Council, Seoni, till the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 3, therefore, there could be no question of holding any election or selection of Councillors, was sought to be answered by the learned counsel for the said respondents by saying that the term of the deemed Municipal Council, Seoni, expired on 9th October 1963, long before the Ordinance came into force, and that, therefore, it could not be said that the term of this Municipal Council expired "immediately before the coming into force of the Ordinance" so as to attract sub-section (2) of section 3 and result in the extension of the term of the Municipal Council till the expiry of the period specified in section 3 (1) of the Ordinance.