DUNI CAND Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE under -mentioned three questions of some immortance relating to the interpretation and scope of Rule 7(g) of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952 framed by the Punjab Government, under Sections 240 and 258 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, arise in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are these:

(3.) IT was in that situation that this petition was filed on September 13, 1967 for setting aside the impugned orders of the Scrutiny Officer and the Revising Authority (Annexures 'B' and 'C respectively). Separate written statements have been filed by the Scrutiny Officer (Respondent No, 4), by the Revising Authority (Respondent No. 3), by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee on behalf of the State (Respondent No. 1) and by Joginder Singh (Respondent No. 5). Respondents 6 to 9 have not appeared to contest the petition in spite of service. In paragraph 5 of the written statement of Respondent No. 5, it has been stated that the Petitioner knew before the date of scrutiny that a "No Demand Certificate" had been refused to him, whereas the same had been granted to the answering Respondent (Respondent No. 5), and other candidates, before August 25, 1967, which was the last date for filing the nomination papers. It has been further added that the notice in question was sent to the Petitioner through a municipal peon as well as by registered post, but that the Petitioner had declined to receive the same when tendered to him by the peon. In the return of the Scrutiny Officer (Shri Santokh Singh, Respondent No. 4), it has been stated that the unsigned memorandum [Annexure A.) was placed on the nomination papers and the Secretary was summoned and examined, who stated that the Petitioner owed dues to the municipality on account of certain works executed by him in the past and that the Petitioner could not give any evidence in rebuttal and could not satisfy the Scrutiny Officer that he did not owe any dues to the Committee. In the affidavit of the Secretary, Jagraon Municipality, it has been admitted that the Petitioner had been finally paid for other works carried out by him except for the repairs of certain roads and that the securities of other works had been released. There was some audit objection pending with the Jagraon Municipality against the Petitioner which involved certain recoveries from him. Correctness of the copy of Annexure 'A' produced by Joginder Singh has also been testified in the Secretary's affidavit. A copy of the notice in question along with copies of the reports thereon, has been filed with the affidavit of the Secretary. The copy of the notice is according to Annexure 'A', which has already been reproduced in an earlier part of this judgment. Below the notice, there is an endorsement in Urdu by a Municipal peon (Beldar) to the effect that he had gone to the house of the Petitioner thrice but had not succeeded in effecting service on him, as the Petitioner had refused to take the notice. The report is dated September 2, L967. Below the report, there is an order of the Head Clerk (H.C.) bearing the same date, directing that the notice be delivered to the Petitioner by registered post. Then there is an endorsement by the Secretary of the municipality dated September 4, 1967, approving of the procedure suggested by the Head Clerk and directing service of the notice on the Petitioner under registered cover. The last endorsement on the copy of the notice produced by the Secretary of the Municipality is about the notice having been despatched by registered post on September 7, 1967. A copy of the audit objections has also been filed with the affidavit of the Municipal Secretary. Reference is made in the objections to certain excess measurements and it is stated at the end that "The excess should be approved before final payment is made". It is really in the nature of a usual audit objection requiring approval for certain payment and does not, by itself, suggest recovery of any amount being effected from the Petitioner. I am, however; not concerned with this aspect of the case as I have to presume for the purposes of deciding this writ petition that the municipality did decide to make certain recoveries from the Petitioner on account of the aforesaid audit objections. Though the amounts of relevant vouchers mentioned in the audit objections were Rs. 2,887.96 Paise under item 20 and Rs. 240.25 Paise under the other item, no particular sum was mentioned as due from the Petitioner. No definite amount was claimed from the Petitioner in the notice of demand dated September 1, 1967. I will similarly have to assume without myself deciding about the matter that Annexure 'A' is a true copy of the notice, which was in fact sent to the Petitioner on September, 2, 1967; and that he refused to accept the same and further that this should be deemed to be sufficient service of the notice on him on September 2. It is on the above -said assumptions that I proceed to decide the questions of law raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as I do not find my way to embark upon any enquiry in these proceedings about some amount having in fact been due from the Petitioner to the Jagraon Municipality or not.