PULIN BEHARI DINDA Vs. BYOMKESH MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two persons who along with one Pulin Behari Dinda had been declared elected as municipal commissioner in the municipal election in ward no. II in Midnapore, have asked for the Court's interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with the order passed on 26-9-1951 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, in an application under Sections 38, Bengal Municipal Act for setting aside the election. The validity of the election was challenged on a large number of grounds. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was no substance in most of the objections. He found however that two voters had been prevented from casting their' votes because the polling booth was not opened at the proper time, that two votes were cast in the names of two dead persons that the vote cast in the name of the Manager, Burma Shell Co., was cast by somebody else than the manager and also that the vote cast in this constituency by one Anil Kumar Kundu was invalid as he had already exercised his franchise in another constituency. In deciding the question whether these contraventions in law had materially affected the-election the learned Judge thought that it should be proper to add the six votes to the person who was at the bottom of the poll and that the 4 invalid votes should be deducted from the total number of votes secured by each of the successful candidates. It was on such accounting that he came to the conclusion that the irregularities and illegalities found by him had materially affected the result of the election.

(2.) It has been contended before us that the learned Judge was wrong in his view that in a municipal election a person could not vote more than once in two different wards but the main ground on which his decision was challenged was that the learned Judge should have himself opened the ballot box and counted the vote to find out in whose constituency in fact the 4 invalid votes had been cast and that it was mathematically wrong for him to deduct the 4 votes several times over from the total votes secured by the different candidates.

(3.) In my judgment, there is much force in this contention which has been pressed before us by Mr. Mukherj'ee on behalf of tbe petitioner and we might have been inclined to interfere if the petitioner had moved this Court within a reasonable time. Considering the great delay after which the petitioner moved this Court I have come to the conclusion that the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be exercised.