PUSHPADHAR CHALIHA Vs. BIBHUTI PROSAD CHALIHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the District Judge was not right in holding that no security was required in an appeal filed under Section 16(c) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 -Assam Act XV of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act') The petitioner was declared elected by the returning officer as his only opponent's nomination paper was rejected. The opposite Party filed an appeal before the District Judge as provided for under section 16(c) of the Act, challenging that rejection of his nomination paper. A preliminary point was raised by the present appellant that no appeal was maintainable as the security deposit required under section 16 was not made. The District Judge held that no such security was required in an appeal under section 16(c). The correctness of this decision is challenged by means of this petition.

(2.) SECTION 16 of the Act reads as follows: