SUBODH KUMAR BOSE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF KRISHNANAGAR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the point involved is about the interpretation of Section 529A, Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The point is small but of some importance. It arises in the following way. The petitioner is a resident of the town of Krishnanagar where he was previously living in a rented house at No. 10-A Dhaipara Lane situate in Ward No, 1 within the limits of Krishnanagar Municipality and from which he removed to his own house in Amiruddin Punjabi Lane also in Ward No. 1. On or about 17-5-1955 respondent 3, the District Magistrate of Wadia, fixed the next general election of the said Municipality to be held on 6-3-1956. This notice was duly published on 25-5-1955, both by hanging up in prominent places as well as by beat of drums. Thereafter on 30-5-1955, the Registering Authority was appointed to prepare the voters' list. On 31-8-1955, the said Authority published the preliminary electoral roll. This was done by fixing copies in the different Wards in prominent places & by proclamation throughout the Municipality. A copy was hung up on the notice Board of the Bar Association of which the petitioner is a practising member and which is within the precincts of the Court where he pursues his profession as a pleader. On the same day the Chairman invited members of the public to file claim petitions in cases of omissions or inaccuracies in the preliminary electoral roll. I am informed that a very large number of objections were filed and were dealt with according to law. The final electoral roll was then prepared. The petitioner's name does not occur in either the preliminary or the final electoral roll. On 15-12-1955, the petitioner made an application before the District Magistrate, Nadia, under Section 529A of the said Act. Section 529A is as follows:

(2.) In the petition of appeal, the petitioner stated that being a resident of a house situate in Krishnanagar he had the requisite qualification and was entitled to be a voter under the Municipal law, but that in the electoral roll published, his name did not appear. It will be observed that in the petition he did not make out any ground that the provisions as to publication of notices etc., under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder had not been made properly or in accordance with law. He simply stated that he had the requisite qualification and his name did not appear in the electoral roll and that he was highly prejudiced thereby. He prayed that the Municipality may be directed to enlist his name in the electoral roll so that he might exercise his vote. A certified copy of this petition was produced at the hearing and I have directed that it may be marked as an exhibit and kept as of record. The learned District Magistrate heard the appeal and passed his order on 30-12-1955. He pointed out that the petitioner did not avail himself of Rule 8 of the Election Rules and did not move the Registering Authority for inserting his name in the final roll. He then proceeded to say as follows: "Where therefore a party fails to apply for relief in time under Rule 8, I cannot entertain his petition under Section 529A. The petition is accordingly rejected."

(3.) This Rule was issued by Bose, J., on 9-1-1956, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not issue quashing and/or setting aside the order as also the proceedings in appeal being Miscellaneous Case No. 147 of 1955-56 complained of in the petition, and for other relief.