RAMBILAS GOUR Vs. TAHSILDAR HOSHANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners, who are traders of Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti. Itarsi, are challenging the voters list of the traders constituencies to the krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and also the election from those constituencies held in october, 1983.

(2.) THE term of the market committee of the Krishi Upaj Mandi expired on 17-9-1985. No voters list was prepared as required under the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhi-Suchana. Prakashan, Riti Bhar Sadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974. The election programme was announced on 20-9-1985. The preliminary voters list was published on 30-9-1985. Objections were invited upto 3-10-1985. On that day on an objection being raised by the Secretary of the Samiti that 309 traders shown in the voters list have not yet filed their applications for renewal, the Returning Officer, i. e. respondent-Tahsildar, deleted the names of 309 traders, including the names of the petitioners, from the voters list. On 4-10-1985 final voters list was published. The present petition was filed on 16-10-1985 and on 24-10-1985 this Court stayed the declaration of the result of the election but by subsequent order dated 16-12-1985 it was clarified that declaration of the result from the traders constituency alone is being stayed. The election was held on 28-10-1985.

(3.) THE petitioners' contentions are : (1) that no voters list was published or prepared prior to the expiry of the term of previous committee, i. e. before 17-9-1985 in accordance with Rule 13 (1) (ii) under Rule 13 (3) claims and objections have to be invited and order passed thereon, in the preliminary voters list published on 30-9-1985 names of 510 persons were included in the voters list from the traders constituencies, including the names of the petitioners, but without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and other 309 names have been deleted at the instance of the Secretary of the Samiti who had no right or jurisdiction to raise any objection nor the Returning officer could suo motu delete the names; (iii) by way of amendment the petitioners further submitted that Rule 12 (vi) of the Rules is vague and contrary to section (i) of the adhiniya. and as such is ultra vires. By way of rejoinder, the petitioners further submitted that the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was the authority to receive claims and objections regarding the voters list and as such he could not have been an objector, moreover the Director, Krishi Upaj Mandi had no jurisdiction to direct deletion of the names of the traders whose licences were not renewed.