RESHAM LAL Vs. ELECTION COMMISSIOMER, FEROZEPORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been presented to this Court in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner, Resham Lal, was elected member to the Municipal Committee, Malaut, from Ward No. 4 in the municipal elections held in February, 1959. His election was challenged by an election petition by five voters. The Election Commission allowed the election petition and set aside the election on the 30th June, 1961 the principal ground on which the election was set aside was that the electoral rolls had not been prepared in accordance with the rules and therefore, there was no electoral roll on the basis of which an election could be held. The order of the Election Commission was challenged by Civil Writ No. 1056 of 1961. This petition was filed in August, 1961. In the mean time, the Tribunal's order had been gazetted and the gazette notification is of the 10th November, 1961. The writ petition came up before Pandit J. on 12th October, 1962 and was dismissed in view of the decision of Dua J. in Nand Lal v. Das Raj C.W. No. 608 of 1961, decided on 26th September, 1961. It was held by Dua J. that till there is a notification by Government, the order of the Election Commission cannot be challenged because it is open to the government either to accept or not to accept the decision of the Election Commission. It appears that the parties were oblivious of the notification declaring the result of the election which had been issued on 10th November, 1961, that is, almost a year prior to the order of Pandit J. The present petition has been filed on the same allegations as were made in Civil Writ No. 1056 of 1961 inter partes on the 10th April, 1963.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that the contention of Mr. Sibal is well -founded, but if I give effect to that contention, I would be nullifying the effect of the decisions of this Court referred to above. Therefore, though Mr. Sibal is technically right that the Election Commission was not justified in setting aside the election of the petitioner on the ground on which it has been set aside, yet in view of the fact that there was no electoral roll in the eye of law on the basis of which a valid election could be held, the result would be the same because this Court will not while acting under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution, give effect to such an election. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere in this situation under the extraordinary powers conferred on this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution.