Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Ramniji Das praying that the election programme for the election to the Municipal Committee of Bhiwani issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, respondent No. 2, be quashed and all proceedings and actions taken in pursuance of that election programme be cancelled.
(2.) ALTHOUGH a number of grounds have been taken in the petition at the hearing of the petition Mr. Durga Dass Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed only two grounds. It is contended in the first instance that under sub -rule (3) of rule 3 of the Municipal Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the election programme should be published not less than ten days before the first of the dates specified in the election programme. This provision according to the learned counsel, was not complied with In the present case and as such rendered invalid the election programme. The other contention of the learned counsel is that arrears of house tax, water -tax and other municipal taxes were due from respondents 4 to 9, and as such they were ineligible to file their nomination papers. The order of the Returning Officer as well as of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, in revision refusing to reject the nomination papers of the aforesaid respondents, were stated to be illegal, unsustainable and ultra vires of their powers. So far as the first contention is concerned. I find that rule 3 reads as under: 3. (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall frame a programme for general elections hereinafter referred to as the "election programme" of the Municipal Committee. (2) The election programme shall specify the date or dates on/by or within which : (i) the nomination papers shall be presented: (ii) the list of nomination papers shall be posted; (iii) the nomination papers shall be scrutinised; (iv) applications for the revision of the orders of the authority scrutinising the nomination papers may be made to the Deputy Commissioner; (v) the revision application shall be decided; (vi) a candidate may withdraw his candidature; (vii) the list of valid nomination papers shall be posted; (viii) the list of polling stations shall be posted; (ix) the poll shall be held; (x) the ballot papers shall be counted (here time and place fixed for the purpose shall also be specified); and (xi) the result of election shall be declared, (3) The election programme shall be published not less than ten days before the first of the dates specified in the election programme, by posting a copy at the office of the Deputy Commissioner; at the office concerned of the Municipal Committee; and at other conspicuous places in the said Municipality as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf. The election programme about the election to the Municipal Committee of Bhiwani was, according to the allegations of the petitioner, published on 1st June, 1961 and was to the following effect: NOTICE The following election programme is framed and published under sub -rules (1) and (3) of rule 3 of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952, for election to the Municipal Committees of Bhiwani, Fatehabad and Kalanwali, in the Hissar District - JUDGEMENT_17_LAWS(P&H)2_1963.htm Dated: 1 -6 -1961 Sd/ - Iqbal SinghDeputy Commissioner, Hissar. According to Mr. Durga Dass Khanna, as the first date mentioned in the above election programme was 10th June, 1961 and as the notice was issued on 1st June, 1961, it cannot be said that the election programme was published not less than ten days before the first of the dates specified in the election programme. Reliance in this connection is placed on a Bench decision of this Court Jai Bhawan Sharma and another v. Matu Ram and others : (1963) 65 P. L. R. 1090, wherein it was held that the words ''not less than ten days" in rule 3(3) of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1952 meant ten clear days and ten clear days had to intervene between the publication of the election programme and the first of the dates specified in it and where only nine days intervened between the two dates there was contravention of the mandatory provisions of rule 3(3).
(3.) I have given the matter my consideration and am of the view that there was no infraction of the provisions of sub -rule (3) of rule 3 in the present case. The words "the first of the dates specified in the election programme" mentioned in sub -rule (3), in my opinion, ruler to the date mentioned in clause (i) of sub -rule (2) which relates to the presentation of the nomination papers. It is sub rule (2) of rule 3 which mention? the dates which have to be specified in an election programme, and as the date of the presentation of the nomination papers is the first of the dates both in chronological as well as serial order amongst the dates mentioned in sub -rule (2), it would follow that "the first of the dates specified in the election programme" has to be the date of the presentation of the nomination papers. If the Deputy Commissioner mentioned an additional date in the notice of election programme it would not in any way alter or affect "the first of the dates specified in the election programme" mentioned in sub -rule (3), which would continue to be the date of the presentation of the nomination papers, because the mention of such an additional date was unnecessary and went beyond the requirements of sub -rule (2). Rule 3 has to be read as a whole and its sub -rules cannot be read in compartments as contended by Mr. Khanna. As the election programme was, according to the allegations of the petitioner, published on 1st June 1961 and the last date for presenting nomination papers was 20th June 1961, it cannot be said that the election programme was published less than ten days before the first of the dates specified in the election programme. So far as Jai Bhagwan Sharma's case is concerned, I find that the election programme was published on 29th July 981 and the last date for presenting nomination -papers was 8th August 1961. As there was not an interval of clear ten days between the date of publication of the election programme and the first of the dates specified in it, the Court held that there was contravention of the rules but in the present case, as stated above, there was a much longer interval between 1st June 1961, on which day the election programme was published, and 20th June 196l, which was the last late for presenting nomination papers. It may also be mentioned that in Jai Bhagwan Sharma's case (supra) the Court found on facts that the contravention of the rules had caused actual prejudice to the petitioners. No such prejudice has, however, been shown to have been caused to the petitioner in the present case.;