Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner Nemai Chandra Pal is a rate-payer of the Arambagh Municipality. He is a. voter, as also a candidate for election from Ward No. 1 of the said Municipality at the ensuing election of Commissioners. His nomination has been accepted. The opposite party No. 2 Nanda. Lal Haldar is also a 'candidate for election from Ward No. 1. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, it is, alleged, that the petitioner took an objection to the validity of the nomination paper of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was a person disqualified under Section 22(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act,, 1932, inasmuch as he was guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than six, months, under Section 7(1) of Act 24 of 1946. It is alleged that he asked the Chairman of the Municipality to refer the matter to Government and to find out whether the candidature of the respondent No. 2. was approved by Government or not. It is stated that the Chairman refused to refer the matter to the State Government and accepted the nomination paper of respondent No. 2. It is said that this acceptance is illegal and that the petitioner has no other remedy open to him and he has, therefore, come up to this Court for relief.
(2.) This Rule was issued on 27-1-1955, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing the opposite party No. 1 to cancel or strike out the nomination paper of respondent No. 2 and/or why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not issue quashing the order accepting the nomination paper of the respondent No. 2 complained of in the petition, and/or why such further or other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
(3.) It appears that the facts relating to the conviction of respondent No, 2 are as follows: One Panchanan Haldar was the owner of a cloth shop at Arambagh. He was a licensed dealer and he was charged with having committed the following offences under Section 7(1) of Act 24 of 1946. (1) That being a retail dealer of cloth, he did not issue cash memos to all buyers; (2) That he did not maintain stock register pro perly; and ' (3) That he submitted incorrect monthly returns to the Civil Supplies Department. A copy of the judgment of the learned Magistrate of Arambagh dated 8-3-1951 is annexed to the affidavit of Nandalal Haldar affirmed on 28-2-1955. That shows that it was Panchanan Haldar who was the owner of the cloth shop and that the respondent No. 2 used to write the khatas of the shop, only because Monoranjan Roy, the accredited Ac-comitant, was temporarily not available. The learned Magistrate proceeds to say as follows: "The other accused is aged about 29 and started writing the khatas of the shop when the employee -- Monoranjan Roy -- was not available. It appears to me that the offence of the accused persons is more due to carelessness and mismanagement than due to criminal intentions. There is no allegation, or evidence that the accused persons sold any cloth in black market or smuggled them elsewhere. Then offence consists of non-observance of the rules of the Civil Supplies Department. Thus the offences of the accused persons are more technical than vital or real. ............. Accused Nandalal Haldar is sentenced to detention till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty only), in default, R. I. for one month." "It is doubtful if it can be said that any 'offence' has been committed in respect of the cloths of the shop. The real offence seems to have been committed in respect of the stock-register only.";