BIHARI LALL Vs. BINDESHWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by two Councillors and one tax-payer and voter of the Patna Municipal Corporation. On the 2nd April 1964, a meeting of the Councillors of the Corporation was convened at 5 O' Clock in the evening in the Corporation Hall at Bankipur Circle to elect a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor for the year 1964-65. Opposite party No. 1, Sri Bindeshwari Prasad, presided over and conducted the business of that meeting. Opposite party 2 and 5 were nominated as candidates for the office of the Mayor and opposite party 3 and 4 for that of the Deputy Mayor, Fifty-two Councillors were present in that meeting and participated in the election. After the ballot papers were received from the Councillors, the Presiding Officer (opposite party No. 1) counted the ballot papers. He declared opposite party No. 2, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Golwara elected as Mayor receiving 26 votes as against the other candidate, opposite party No. 5, Dr. Damodar Prasad, who received 25 votes. One ballot paper purported to have been given in support of Dr. Damodar Prasad was rejected by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the mark given by the Councillor-voter against the name of opposite party No. 5 was different from a cross (x) sign. Petitioner No. 1 asserted in paragraph 14 of his application that he had put that mark on that particular ballot paper with the only intention to vote for opposite party No. 5. It was also urged by him that opposite party No. 1 acted illegally in rejecting that ballot paper and in not entertaining the objection raised at that time against such rejection Opposite party No. 3, who was declared elected as Deputy Mayor, was said to be disqualified for the election as he was in arrears of the Corporation dues. In short, the election of opposite party 2 and 3 as Mayor and Deputy Mayor was challenged and was sought to be quashed by the application.

(2.) Opposite party No. 2, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Golwara, made a return saying that the ballot papers were examined and counted in the meeting of the Councillors on the 2nd April 1964 in presence of the candidates and the Councillors in the meeting hall by the President who declared one of the ballot papers as invalid under the provisions of Rule 6(b) of the rules framed for election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. No objection was raised there against that rejection. Opposite party No. 1 also made a return refuting the charge by the petitioners that he was not properly elected to preside in the meeting on the appointed day. He pointed out that he had been proposed and seconded and was unanimously elected as President of that meeting, and that he conducted the election according to the rules framed for the purpose. In paragraph 7 of his return, he stated that ho had rejected one ballot paper as invalid under Rule 6(b), referred to above, as there was some other mark put on the ballot paper than the one specified under the rule. He also stated that no objection was raised against his rejection of the ballot paper. The elected Deputy Mayor, opposite party No. 3, in his return stated that he had no house or holding and was not at all liable for any tax to the Municipal Corporation and no notice had been served upon him under Section 18 of the Municipal Corporation Act. He asserted that he had been duly elected as Deputy Mayor. No return was filed on behalf of the other opposite parties, namely, opposite party 4 and 5, the defeated candidates for the offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, opposite party No, 6, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and opposite party No. 7. the State of Bihar.

(3.) The election of the Deputy Mayor, opposite party No. 3, was challenged on the ground of his ineligibility. He refuted that in his return. Whether ho was liable to any tax and whether ho was in arrears of such tax arc questions which cannot be adequately decided in this proceeding without further enquiry and materials. The petitioners are thus not able to show any error in the election of the opposite party No. 3 as Deputy Mayor. The allegations against opposite party No. 1, who acted as President of the meeting of the Councillors, were not raised in argument.