BINDRA BAN Vs. J.S. QAUMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the original order of the Magistrate 1st Class, dated the 27th April, 1964, and the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner in revision under Rule 16(3) of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952. These orders resulted in the rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner with the result that he was not able to contest the municipal election. The date for filing the nomination papers was from the 17th April, 1964, to the 21st April, 1964. The Petitioner filed his nomination paper on the 18th April, 1964. On the 27th April, 1964, the nomination paper was rejected on the ground that it was filed at 4.00 p.m. beyond the time fixed in Rule 11 of the Rules for filing of nomination papers, the time fixed being from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The order of rejection was upheld in revision by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the revisional authority is dated the 6th May, 1964. The poll was to be held on the 31st May, 1964, and the present petition was filed on the 29th May, 1964. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State has not supported the order on merits. His only contention before us was that the Petitioner was merely a covering candidate on Jan Sangh ticket and as the other candidate on the same ticket had contested the election and lost, therefore, the petition filed on the 29th May, 1964, was belated particularly when no stay order was obtained and the election has been allowed to be held. The same argument has been adopted by the Learned Counsel for the successful candidate. The nomination papers had been accepted before the 29th May, 1964, when the present petition was filed. If the Petitioner was merely a covering candidate there was no point in filing the present petition. Moreover, it is very difficult in the circumstances to predicate whether the Petitioner was the covering candidate or it was the covering candidate whose nomination paper was accepted and who contested the election and lost. Therefore, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the State as well as the Respondent (No. 4 Hans Raj) has no force and is repelled.

(2.) ON the merits, there can be no two opinions about the matter and that is why the Learned Counsel for the State did not contest the petition on the merits nor was any argument raised by the Learned Counsel for Hans Raj, Respondent No. 4, in support of the impugned orders. It is common ground that the nomination paper was filed on the 18th April, 1964, three days in advance of the last date. Even if it was filed after the hours specified in Rule 11 it was all the time with the prescribed authority and should have been deemed to have been presented the next day, i.e., the 19th during the prescribed hours. We are supported in this conclusion by two decisions of Pandit J. in Kanhaya Lal v. Shri Gum Chand C.W. No. 844 of 1964, decided on the 21st May, 1964 and Bhagwati Parshad v. J.S. Qaumi S.D.M. (C.W. No. 908 of 1964), decided on 26th May, 1964. The decision relied upon by the revisional authority, namely Laxmi Narain v. Balwan Singh, 20 E.L.R. 76, is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case, the nomination paper was filed on the last date and after the specified time. Therefore, this decision does not, in any way, run counter to the view taken by Pandit J. and also endorsed by us.

(3.) THE net result is that this petition is allowed, the order rejecting the nomination paper of the Petitioner along with the order affirming it in revision are quashed and it is directed that the election be held after accepting the nomination paper filed by the Petitioner. In the circumstances of this case, however, we will make no order as to costs.