SUNDERLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Sunderlal and two others and arises in the following circumstances. *

(2.) THE applicants are residents of Kotputli which has a municipality constituted under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (No. XXIII of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act ). Under sec. 10 of the Act the Government determined the number of members of this municipality as 10 and provided that 8 shall be elected and 2 shall be nominated members in accordance with sec. 9 (1) of the Act. elections to the Municipality to fill the 8 elected seats were to take place and 2nd of March, 1956, was fixed for filing nominations. 10 persons including one of the applicants before us filed their nomination papers for these 8 seats. 3rd of March, 1956, was fixed for withdrawal of nominations. Something seems to have happened during this period which has not been disclosed in this application ; but we find that suddenly on the 3rd of March, 1956. 8 out of these 10 persons who had submitted their nomination papers on the previous day withdrew. THE result of this was that there were only 2 candidates for 8 vacancies. THE Returning Officer declared these two candi-dates elected and must have reported the circumstances to Government. THEreupon, the Government nominated 8 members to the Municipal Board. Six of these nominations were made under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9, while two were under sub-sec. (1) of that section. THE contention of the applicants before us is that all these 8 nominations should have been made from amongst the classes mentioned in the first proviso to sec. 9 (1) and as it was not so, the nomination of six out of 8, who did not come within the first proviso to sec. 9 (1), was illegal.