MALIRAM Vs. S S RANAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election of respondents Nos. 2 to 9 as members of the Municipal Board Bissau at the, last general election held on 21. 8. 59 under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election Rules, 1951, ( hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Petitioner No. 1 is a defeated candidate and petitioners Nos. 2 to 3 are voters. The petition was contested by successful candidates respondents Nos. 2 to 9. The Returning Officer was joined as respondent No. 1 and notice was served on him. He did not however either file a reply or put in appearance.

(2.) THE S. D. O. Jhunjhunu was appointed Returning Officer by the Collector of Jhunjhunu and he conducted the election in accordance with the following programme published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 23. 4. 59 : - 1. Preparation of voters' list by the Returning Officer under Rule 6 (1) . . . . . . . . . 18. 4. 59 2. Publication of voters' list under Rule 7 . . . . . . . . . 20. 4. 59 3.Last date for filing claims and objections under Rule 9 . . . . . . . . . 20. 5. 59 4. Claims and objections to be decided under Rule 10 by . . . . . . . . . 4. 6. 59 5. Last date for filing appeals under Rule 10 (7) . . . . . . . . . 15. 6. 59 6. Appeals to be decided by . . . . . . . . . 17. 6. 59 7. Final publication of electoral roll under Rule 11 . . . . . . . . . 15. 7. 59 8. Publication of notice under Rule 14 . . . . . . . . . 20. 7. 59 9. Date fixed for election . . . . . . . . . 21. 8. 59 THE election was contested by two groups of candidates. THE successful candidates respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were backed by the Congress party. THE other group of candidates which was defeated included Mall Ram petitioner No. 1 and Durgadatt Harit the former chairman of Bissau Municipal Board.

(3.) THIS rule certainly empowered the Returning Officer to add 687 names to the list of voters published on 20. 4. 59 at any time upto 20. 5. 59 and such additions, not being made on the application of the claimant himself Rules 9 and 10 did not apply to them. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that Rule 11 (2) was ultra vires the rule making power conferred on Government under sec. 205 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court ruling in Chief Commissioner vs. Radhey Shyam (1 ).