BALLABHDAS GENDLAL BADONIA Vs. COLLECTOR, MANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the Petitioner challenges the validity of the elections held on 29 -9 -1958 for electing members for the Municipal Committee, Mandla. The Petitioner is a voter in Mandla. The Respondent No. 1 is the Collector, Mandla, Respondent No. 2 is the State Government and Respondent No. 3 was the supervising officer for elections at the material time. The Municipal Committee has been impleaded as Respondent No. 4. The remaining Respondents Nos. 5 to 18 are the successful candidates from the different wards. The Petitioner prays that the results of the election be declared illegal and be quashed. He further prays for a writ directing the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not to publish the names of the successful candidates.

(2.) THE Petitioner supports his petition on the following facts. The distribution of the wards is uneven and there is a great disparity of voters in them. The electoral roll was not prepared within three months before the election. The scrutiny of nominations instead of being completed in one day was carried on for two days. Lastly, the symbols allotted were changed before polling to the prejudice of a particular political party.

(3.) THE instruction of the State Government to the Collector to distribute the wards bo as to secure roughly an equal number of voters in each ward is merely an executive instruction. Objections to the distribution of wards were invited and the final distribution was published after considering them. We do not think that the validity of the elections can be challenged on the ground that constitueneie: were not properly delimited. At any rate, it has not been shown to us that any law or rule was contravened in delimiting the wards.