AIDAN Vs. RAM KRISHNA KALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal under sec. 19 (2) of the Rajasthan Town Muncipalites Act, 1951, (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Merta, dated 11th May, 1956.

(2.) BEFORE coming to the question of law which has been raised in this appeal, it would be proper to set out a few facts which are no longer in dispute between the parties. The municipal election of ward No. 3 of Nagore town was held on 16. 1. 55. In that election petitioner Shri Aidan and non-petitioner, Shri Ramkrishna Kalla were rival candidates and there was a straight contest between the two. The result of the election was announced of 17-11 55 and non-petitioner was declared elected, since he secured 294 votes as against 137 votes polled in the petitioner's favour. The total number of votes polled were 487 but 56 of them were rejected as invalid. After this election, the petitioner filed an election petition in the court of the District Judge, Merta and non-petitioner's election was assailed on a number of grounds. The application was contested by the non-petitioner, whereupon 8 issued were framed, The learned Judge found that some of the allegations made by the petitioner were incorrect. At the same time it was found that the signatures of the voters were not taken on the counterfoils of the ballot papers, that in 459 ballot papers electoral roll numbers of the voters were written just below the numbers of the ballot papers and that these 459 ballot papers thus became invalid and should have been rejected. It was held by the learned Judge that only 28 votes polled were valid, but since 22 of these valid votes were cast in non-petitioner's favour and only six were given in favour of the petitioner, the non-petitioner had still a majority of 16 and so he was rightly declared elected. According to the learned Judge, the result of the election was not materially affected even though 459 ballot papers were invalid. He, therefore, dismissed the petitioner's application on 11. 5. 56. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.