MOHINDER SINGH Vs. ABHE RAJ SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mohinder Singh, Appellant.

(2.) MOHINDER Singh was a sitting member and past President of the Municipal Committee at Samrala when an election was held in April, 1964. According to the election programme nomination papers had to be filed on the 8th of April, 1964, and scrutinised by the officer appointed for the purpose on the 14th of April, 1964. The Appellant filed his nomination paper on the due date, but it was rejected by the scrutinising officer by his order dated the 14th of April, 1964, on the ground that on the date when nomination papers had to be filed he was in arrears of various municipal dues. His revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the revising authority, on the 21st of April, 1964 and he challenged these orders by a writ petition filed on the 12th of May, 1964 on grounds which can be summed up as being that his nomination paper was valid and should not have been rejected under Rule 7(g) of the Municipal Election Rules, and that the action of the officers concerned was mala fide because they wished to favour Jasmer Singh, Respondent No. 3, who is a brother of S. Ajmer Singh, then Revenue Minister in this State, and the latter was anxious to procure the election of his brother in the Committee and his appointment as President.

(3.) THE revising authority had found that on the appropriate date, the 8th of April, 1964, Mohinder Singh, was a defaulter of the municipal dues amounting to Rs. 892.16 nP., in respect of house -tax for the period from 1961 to 1964 and Rs. 215.71 nP. in respect of the rent of certain tin -sheds which he jointly owned along with some other persons for the period from 1958 to 1964 and that in fact four demand notices under Section 80 of the Municipal Act had been issued to him in respect of these arrears and a warrant for the recovery of Rs. 276.43 nP. had been issued in respect of house -tax by the S.DO. under Section 81 of the Act on the 19th of February, 1963. Moreover the Petitioner had admitted the existence of arrears standing against him by remitting a sum of Rs. 342 by telegram on the 11th of April, 1964, which in any case could not have saved him even if this had represented the total amount of arrears due from him, since the relevant date was the 8th of April, 1964.