DILBAGH RAI Vs. BRAHM DATT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I shall dispose of two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being Civil Writs Nos. 522 and 638 of 1969, the facts giving rise to which are these. The Market Committee, Adampur (hereinafter called the Committee) was constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was to consist of nine members of whom two were to be elected by persons holding licences under Section 10 of the Act (hereinafter mentioned as Licensees) from amongst themselves in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 12 of the Act.

(2.) FOR the two seats reserved for the licensees the candidates were Dilbagh Rai (Petitioner in Civil Writ No. 522 of 1969) and Brahm Datt and Hari Kishan (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in both the petitions). The electors whose names were recorded in the electoral roll prepared by the Deputy Commissioner under the powers conferred on him by Rule 3 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Election to Market Committee) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules) included "Messrs Ashok Kumar" (serial No. 47) and "Messrs Naresh Kumar Mohinder Pal" (serial No. 43), the former being a one -man concern run by Ashok Kumar, Petitioner No. 2 in Civil Writ No. 638 of 1969, and the latter being a partnership concern with Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, Petitioner No. 1 in Civil Writ No. 638 of 1969, as one of the partners. The elections to the Committee were held on the 12th of December, 1968, according to the programme framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, under Rule 5 of the Rules. Naresh Kumar and Ashok Kumar above -mentioned appeared at the polling station to cast their votes but were not allowed to do so by the presiding officer who accepted an objection made by Hari Kishan above -mentioned that they were both minors.

(3.) IT is the case of the Petitioners in the two petitions that the presiding officer acted illegally in not allowing Naresh Kumar and Ashok Kumar to poll their votes, that in consequence the result of the election has been materially affected and that the election is liable to be quashed on that account.