HIRA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been filed in connection with the election of the Commissioners of the Siwan Municipality, and, since common questions of law and fact are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The election of the Commissioners of Siwan Municipality became due and a notification under rule 7 of the Bihar Municipal Elections and Election Petition Rules, 1953, framed under Sec. 19 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, was published in the Bihar Gazette on 13.12.1982 (annexure 3 to the writ petition in C.W.J.C. 3453/1983), directing the elections to be completed by the 15th of February 1983 and, accordingly, a notice of the p iculars of the election was issued under rule 9. But as the question of addition of fresh areas in the Municipality was under consideration for a long time and the further question of revision of the voters list and delimitation of the wards was also pending the order dated 7.2.1983 as contained in annexure 4 to C.W.J.C. 3453 of 1983 was passed by the State Government postponing the election sine die. Thereafter large areas were included in the Municipality under Sec. 6 of the Act, by the order in annexure '11' dated 9.4.1983, published in the 12th August, 1983 issue of the Bihar Gazette. According to the case of the State, there are about 25,000 voters, in the areas added; who became entitled to vote as a result of the notification annexure 11 and since wards were not formed of the additional areas and the additional voters were not treated as voters for the Municipal election, the steps taken for holding the election had to be ignored. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. 3622/1983 Hira Prasad Dubey was the Chairman of the Municipality and, under his Chairmanship, a resolution was passed on 17.5.1983, as contained in Annexure 12 of C.W.J.C. 3453/1983, to the effect that since the election could be held only after the formation and re -constitution of the wards, steps in this regard should be expeditiously taken. Accordingly the steps already taken for holding the election were ignored. It is important to note that nobody including the petitioner Hira Prasad Dubey is aggrieved by this decision of the State and neither annexure 4 nor annexure 12 of C.W.J.C. 3453/1983 is under challenge in any of these two cases.

(2.) As a result of the aforesaid developments, the election of the Municipality was delayed. The election of several other municipalities in the State also was due. Certain orders were passed by the State Government in this regard for holding the elections expeditiously. The orders in annexure '3' and 'T have been referred to by the petitioner Shri Dubey. Exercising the powers under the Act and the Rules, the District Magistrate, Siwan issued a notification on 25.7.1983 calling upon the voters of the Siwan Municipality to elect the commissioners by August, 1983. This was does without taking into account the added areas and the residents and without re -constituting the wards and modifying the voters lists. According to the programme, the 3rd of August, 1983 was fixed as the last date for filing nomination papers, the 4th of August, 1983 as the date of scrutiny, the 7th of August, 1983 as the last date for withdrawal of candidature and the 27th of August, 1983 as the date of poll. Ramdeo Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 3453/1983 states in his writ application that he met the District Magistrate and pointed out the illegalities arising out of the non -formation of wards of the fresh areas and denial of the right to vote of the residents of these areas. The matter was reagitated pointing out that the added areas became part and parcel of the municipality and the residents had been on that basis subjected to certain liability, as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the writ petition in C.W.J.C. 3453/1983, but no steps were taken to rectify the error before 12.8.1983. On 7.8.1983 the petitioner Shri Dubey remained the sole candidate from the ward No. 7 and, according to his case, he became entitled to be declared elected as an uncontested candidate, Ramdeo Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 3453/1983, filed his writ application in this court on 9.8.1983. The case was placed for admission on 11.3.1983 before a Bench of which I was a member, and was postponed at the request of the respondents for filing an affidavit. On the 12th of August, 1983, the order, as contained in Annexure -1 (of C.W.J.C. 3622/1983), was passed by the State Government stating that a decision had been taken for holding the election only after the re -constitution of the wards. The further steps in regard to the election were stayed. The petitioner Shri Dubey challenged this order by the writ application in C.W.J.C. 3622/1983 filed on 18.8.1983. He also became a caveator in the earlier writ case. The two cases were directed to be placed for admission together.

(3.) In view of the cases being related to election, attempt was made to dispose them of at the admission stage itself. However, the order sheet of the cases show that the State and its authority did not take prompt steps in instructing their counsel and the cases had to be adjourned from time to time. The State counsel could not supply relevant information sought by the Bench and on 13.9.1983 the applications were admitted. They were directed to be placed for hearing expeditiously but had to be adjourned more than once for publication of the relevant records. In May, 1984, the hearing was concluded. Before the judgment could be delivered, it was mentioned by Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the learned counsel for Shri Dubey, that the authorities were contemplating to take expeditious steps for holding the election and so his application could become infructuous. The case was, therefore, placed under the heading "to be mentioned" for the State counsel to state the correct petition (sic). On 18.7.1984, Mr. Kamla Prasad Singh, the State counsel said that the authorities were seriously considering the question of holding the election without delay and a final decision in this regard would be taken soon. We directed that the State should file an affidavit giving the details of the decision and the steps proposed to be taken. Ultimately, on 13.11.1984, it appeared necessary to hear further arguments. As we were not sitting together and one of us was not available at Patna for a considerable period, the further hearing was delayed.