GOVXNDRAO ANANDRAO JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners in this case challenge the validity of the election of the respondent No. 4, Sarawan, as President of the Municipal Council, Betul Bazar. THE first petitioner, Govind Rao, claims to be a duly qualified voter of the Municipal Council. THE other petitioner, Jai Krishna, is a Councillor who unsuccessfully contested election for the office of the President.

(2.) THE election was held on 27th June 1966 at a meeting of the Council convened by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul, acting under rules 2 (d) (ii) and 3 Misc. Petition No. 371 of 1966 decided on 11-10-1966. BR /J. of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (President and Vice-Presidents) Election Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred, to as the Rules). THE Betul Bazar Municipal Council is a Class-IV Municipality under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). According to rule 2 (d) (ii), in the case of first meeting of a Council for Class-Ill or Class-IV Municipalities called under section 55 (2) the 'Presiding Authority' means the Sub-Divisional Officer. Rule 3 is as follows-

(3.) TAKING first the objection that the election should have been held on 17th June 1966 and that date could not be altered, it ignores altogether the fact that the notice by which that date was fixed had been issued by the past President of the Council who had no authority whatsoever to call a meeting of the Council for the election of the President. The notice issued by the past President had thus no legal existence. That being so, when the Sub- Divisional Officer, as the competent authority, issued a notice fixing 27th June 1966 as the date for the election of the President, it cannot be said that there was an alteration in the date once validly fixed for the election of the President. The valid notice in the present case was the one which was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer fixing 27th June 1966 as the date for the election of the President.