BALAI CHAND MAJUMDAR Vs. COMMISSIONERS OF NAIHATI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution and they arise from the decision of Shri Bimalendra Nath Maitra, Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, in suits for setting aside election to Naihati Municipality. The election was held on March 25, 1956. There were four suits filed challenging the election. In suit No. 79 of 1956, the election in respect of Ward No. VI of Naihati Municipality was challenged. In suit No. 80 of 1956, election to Ward No. IV was challenged. In suit No. 81 election to Ward No. V was challenged; and in suit No. 78 election to Ward No. III was challenged and there was an alternative prayer for re-counting the ballot papers and declaring the successful candidates after a proper count.

(2.) The successful candidates were made Defendants and so were the Commissioners of the Naihati Municipality and the Chairman of the Naihati Muncipality. The successful candidates filed written statements, but they did not thereafter appear and contest the suits. The contest was carried on by the Commissioners of the Naihati Municipality and the Chairman of the Naihati Municipality. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there had been some irregularity in the matter of final publication of the electoral roll, but on this ground he did not set aside the elections. The learned Subordinate Judge decided other issues against Plaintiffs who challenged the election except one issue regarding Ward No. III. Accordingly, the election to Wards Nos. IV, V and VI were declared valid and suits 79, 80 and 81 were dismissed. As regards Ward No. III, the learned Subordinate Judge held that there was one item of irregularity or error which stood out in the case, the Polling Officer had reported that 805 votes had been cast and 44 of the votes had been rejected and the result of the election had been declared by counting the remaining votes, and that all the 805 voting papers had been sent on to the Election Tribunal; but on careful counting it was found that not 805. but 801 voting papers had been received by the Tribunal, and there were therefore four voting papers missing. The learned Subordinate Judge held that on count of the voting papers received, it appeared that Ratikanta Banerjee had secured 545 votes and Sisir Kumar Ghose had received 422 votes while Amulya Majumdar had got 309 and San tosh Kumar Sarkar 308 votes. The polling officer had declared Ratikanta Banerjee, Sisir Kumar Ghose and Santosh Kumar Sarkar as duly elected, because according to his count the number of votes received by Santosh Sarkar was 311 and that received by Amulya Majumdar was 307. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, held that in the absence of the four missing voting papers, it could not be decided whether Santosh Sarkar or Amulya Majumdar had received the larger number of votes, and while the count of the four missing votes could not affect the result so far as Ratikanta Banerjee and Sisir Kumar Ghose were concerned, still the election of the three members of one Ward was one indivisible process, and if it had to be set aside in respect of one member it had to be set aside as a whole. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, set aside the election in respect of Ward No. Ill and directed re-election.

(3.) The Plaintiffs who challenged the elections have filed the revisional applications 3023, 3024 and 3025 in respect of Wards Nos. IV, V and VI respectively. The Commissioners of Naihati Municipality have filed the revisional application 3109 challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge setting aside the election of Ward No. III.