NARAYAN CHANDRA MUKHERJEE Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HOOGHLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule issued upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from further proceeding with the erection camplained of in the petition, and/or directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 2 to hold a fresh election according to law or why such other or further directions and/or orders should not be issued or made as to this Court seems fit and proper. This is an unfortunate instance of a case where the petitioners have made out a case on the merits but have followed an entirely wrong procedure. The facts are shortly as follows : The petitioners are residents of Uttarpara in the district of Hooghly. They are ratepayers of the Uttarpara Municipality, The said Municipality was divided into four wards, each having two elected Commissioners. On or about 4-4-1952, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly, fixing the General election of the Commissioners of the Uttarpara Municipality on 9-11- 1952. On 15-4-1952, the Chairman, Uttarpara Municipality published the same in conformity with Rule 2(2) of the Election rules.

(2.) Thereafter the Electoral rolls were duly prepared and finally published under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Election rules. The petitioners axe voters whose names appear in the Final electoral roll. They being (belong?) to Ward Nos. I and IV. In respect of the general election, the last day for receiving nomination papers was fixed on 4-10-1952 and the scrutiny of nominations was fixed on 13-10-1952. The preliminary electoral roll having disclosed a large increase in the number of voters, the total number of seats was recommended to be increased to nine and accordingly, the State Government by its Notification No. MT/M-58/52 da'ed 13-6-1952, published in the Calcutta Gazette on 19-6-1952, (under Section 6. Bengal Municipal Act 1932, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') declared its intention of altering the number of Commissioners from eight to nine. Nomination papers were received in accordance with the previous orders, and on 14-10-1952, a list was published under Rule 17(5) of the Ejection rules framed under the Act, of such candidates whose nomination papers were found valid and who were registered under Rule 4(a). The list shows that 8 candidates were nominated for election in Ward I, 4 for Word II. 7 for Ward III and 7 for Ward IV. Ten candidates withdrew from the election, 3 having with-drawn from Ward I and 3 from Ward III.

(3.) Meanwhile, objections were preferred under Section 7 of the Act. On 16-10-1952 the District Magistrate, Hooghly, made an order suspending further proceedings. This order was published by the Chairman on 22nd October. Finally, the Government by Notification No. 1-M-58/52/1 dated 11-10-1952, decided to have ten seats. On 7-11-1952 a Notification No. 1804M. was published, determining the number of Commissioners to be elected from each ward. The result will appear at a glance from tne following table : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_32_AIR(CAL)_1954Html1.htm</FRM> On 14-11-1952 the District Magistrate modified his previous order of 4-4-1952 and fixed 8-2-1953 as the date of the general election in all the wards. On that day, the general election was held and 10 Commissioners elected.