(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order dated the 29th June, 1966, passed by Single Judge of this Court, summarily dismissing a writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 366 of 1966) against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, Dalbhum, dated the 6th June, 1966, setting aside the election of the petitioner to the Mukhiaship of Harharghuttu Gram Panchayat and declaring the respondent Mahabir Singh as the duly elected Mukhia of the said Panchayat.
(2.) A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal was raised by Mr. Lal Narain Sinha appearing for respondent No. 1, Mahabir Singh. He urged that the order of the Single Judge dismissing the appeal did not disclose any reasons for such dismissal and, consequently, it should not be considered to be a final order or Judgment for the purpose of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Patna Letters Patent. He relied on Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1957, where it was held that if an application under Article 226 as dismissed in limine, without passing a speaking order, such dismissal will not operate as res judicata. The question for consideration here, however, is not whether the order of the Single Judge operates as res judicata or not, but whether it finally disposes of the controversy between the parties so as to amount to a final order or judgment for the purpose of Clause 10 of the Patna Letters Patent. In a recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni it was laid down that an order of a High Court summarily dismissing an application under Article 226 must be construed to be final disposal of the controversy that was raised before the High Court and that it makes no difference whether the High Court pronounced a speaking order or not. Such an order will be a final order for the purpose of Article 133(1) of the constitution, and by parity of reasoning it must also be held to be a "judgment" for the purpose of Clause 10 of Patna Letters Patent. The preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected.
(3.) The elections to the said Panchayat were held on the 14th May, 1965, and there were four contestants, namely, the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and two other persons. The petitioner was declared duly elected. While challenging his election before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 urged the following three important grounds: