Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a resident of village Dhopdhopi within the jurisdiction of the Dhopdhopi Union Board in the district of 24-Parganas. This Union Board was constituted by Government of Bengal Notification No. 3438 L.S.G., dated the 24th July, 1924, and consisted of certain Mouzas, particulars whereof are given in paragraph 2 of the petition. The Union Board of Ramnagor lies contiguous to the Dhopdhopi Union Board, and was itself constituted by a Notification No. 4949 L.S.G., dated the 3rd December, 1927, and comprises of Mouzas, particulars whereof are given in paragraph 3 of the petition.
(2.) This application relates to a general election of the Dhopdhopi Union Board held on the 31st March, 1953. Prior to the holding of the general election, the electoral rolls were made and published in accordance with the Rules framed under the Bengal Village Self-Government Act. The petitioner did not put forward any objection to the electoral rolls, as made out and published, at any time. After the election had taken place, the petitioner preferred an objection before the Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas (Respondent No. 11) under section 17B of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act. The principal objection taken was that the election was not restricted within the area which fell strictly within the Notification constituting the Dhopdhopi Union Board. It was alleged that some areas in the adjoining Union Board of Ramnagor have been included, whereas other areas which should have been included, for example Mouza Teurhat, had been wrongfully excluded. It was therefore said that the entire election was invalid, as a general election could not be held in an Union Board, including therein, areas that belonged to it and also areas that did not belong to it. Before this objection was heard by the learned Magistrate, this Rule was taken out on the 1st June, 1953 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of quo-warranto should not be issued directing the opposite parties Nos. to 9 to exhibit the authority by which they v/ere holding office and | or why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the Respondent State to cancel Rule 2 of the Union Board Election Rules and | or why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the Respondent District Magistrate to act in accordance with law and | or why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the Respondent Election Officer to exclude the voters of Mouza Ramnagor from the electoral roll of Dhopdhopi Union Board and to include therein the voters of Mouza Teurhat, and to act according to law, and for other reliefs.
(3.) In the petition, it was stated that a petition had been made to the District Magistrate on the 27th May, 1953, but that he had failed to take any action on it. It appears, however, that on the very next day to the issue of the rule, namely, the 2nd June, 1953, the District Magistrate passed his order on the said petition. He conceded that the Union Boards were constituted by certain Notifications but proceeded to state that, since those Notifications had been published, there were settlement operations, and Mouzas have been changed in area, in some cases coalescing with others and in other cases being divided into several parts and being included in another Union. It is said that Government intended to publish appropriate Notifications to redefine the areas. The learned Magistrate therefore did not uphold the objection. In fact, what he said was that section 17B was concerned with a dispute as to election of a member, whereas the dispute before him was about the constitution of the Board, and that therefore the application was not maintainable. In this the learned Magistrate was clearly wrong. A Union Board when framed by a Notification must owe its origin to the Notification, and until another Notification is published changing the area covered by it. there is no justification whatsoever in holding a general election of the Union Board as consisting of areas not included therein or excluding areas included in the Notification constituting the Board. If any general election is held on a footing other than the notified areas, then clearly the persons elected had not been validly elected. In this respect, the constitution of the Board is interlinked with the validity of the election. I cannot see how the fact that the settlement operations have altered the areas can be a justification for taking into account areas which are not included in the Notification constituting a Union Board, or for excluding areas contained therein.;