SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ to quash the order passed by Supervising Officer, Municipal Election, Dongargarh, and the order of the appellate authority, which held that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the municipal election and consequently rejected his nomination paper.

(2.) THE petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on an objection taken by Mahesh Chandra (respondent No. 1) on the ground that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years on January 1, 1969. Shri Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner had admitted that he was below 21 years of age and that on the petitioner's admission his name could not be included in the electoral roll of the Assembly constituency. Learned counsel, however, urges that the Supervising Officer, Municipal Election, had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the petitioner's age. It was sufficient if his name appeared in the Voters' List of the Municipality, which list is prepared from the electoral roll for the State Assembly. Section 30 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, reads thus:-

(3.) THE learned Sub-Divisional Officer, who heard the appeal from the order of the Supervising Officer, further pointed out that the appellant did not prove that he was ever registered as a voter in the Assembly Rolls of that area. Shri Dabir produced before us a copy of the amended roll of the Assembly, but the copy does not bear the date on which the roll was amended, nor is he able to tell us the date on which the roll was amended. But even on the first point, this petition must be dismissed.