PANDIT PRAHALAD DUTT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the election of the councillors who have been returned from the 48 wards of the Indore Municipal Corporation as a result of the general elections under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), held in the last quarter of 1964 and the first quarter of 1965. By Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 130, 131 and 132 of 1965, elections held in wards Nos. 10, 9 and 33 have been separately challenged on identical grounds. THIS order shall dispose of all these petitions.

(2.) THE programme of general elections fixed in accordance with the requirements of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1902 (hereinafter called the Rules) was as follows: Date of publication of electoral rolls 30 September 1964 THE last date for receiving claims and objections 30 October 1964 THE last date for decision on claims and objections 13 November 1964 THE last date for filing appeal against decisions on claims and objections 20 November 1964 THE last date for disposal of appeals arising out of the orders passed on claims and objections 27 November 1964 Final publication of the electoral rolls 7 December 1964 THE last date for final nomination papers 2 1 December 1964 Scrutiny of nomination papers 30 December 1964 THE last date for withdrawal of nomination papers 7 January 1965 THE date of poll 24 January 1965 It is not disputed that this programme was adhered to except in regard to one particular matter which, as we would show immediately, is the subject- matter of the present controversy.

(3.) IN answer, the respondents contested the claim that the provisions of section 9 or section 10 of the Act or of Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules were either contravened or not observed. According to them, the final electoral rolls were validly amended in accordance with the requirements of section 14 (2) of the Act and could not, therefore, furnish any ground for calling in question the election of the councillors.