SUBHA BAO, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by ;
(2.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute in respect of the election to the Panchayat of Byappanahalli, from its first constituency, in the State of Mysore. The calendar of events for the said election was as follows: JUDGEMENT_458_AIR(SC)_1963Html1.htm The appellant and five others filed their nomination papers within the prescribed date. The polling took place on the scheduled date, namely, 13/04/1960. The candidates secured votes as mentioned under: JUDGEMENT_458_AIR(SC)_1963Html2.htm The appellant and respondent 2 were duly declared elected to the Panchayat. Respondent 1 filed an election petition under S 13 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (Mysore Act No. 10 of 1959), hereinafter called the Act, in the court of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore, for a declaration that the appellant was not duly elected and for a further declaration that the first respondent was duly elected. The case of the first respondent, as disclosed in his petition, was that on the date fixed for filing of nominations the appellant's name was not in the authenticated list of voters published under R, 3, cl. (5) of the Mysore Panchayats and Taluk Boards Election Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules, and, therefore, he was not entitled to file his nomination. It was his further case that the appellant was not ordinarily a resident of Byappanahalli and, therefore, lie was disqualified from standing for the election from that constituency.
(3.) THE learned Munsiff held on the second point that the appellant was ordinarily a resident of the said village and was, therefore, qualified to be included in the electoral roll of the Panchayat, but he came to the conclusion that his name was not included in the authenticated list of voters of the said Panchayat. On that finding, he set aside the election of the appellant and declared the first respondent, who 460 secured the next highest number of votes, to have been duly elected in his place. On appeal, the learned Judges of the High court, after noticing the finding of the Munsiff to the effect that the appellant's name was not included in the authenticated list of voters for the Panchayat, observed that they did not agree with the reasoning given by the learned Munsiff, but they agreed with his conclusion on the basis of a different reasoning. They held that though the name of the appellant was included before the prescribed date in the electoral roll of the legislative constituency under S. 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it was so included in direct violation of R. 26 of the Representation of the People Rules, 1956, and that, therefore, the said inclusion was void. Having so held, they agreed with the learned Munsiff that the appellant's election was liable to be set aside. Hence the appeal. It may be mentioned that there was no appearance on the side of the respondents.;