KARAM SINGH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BHATINDA (REVISING AUTHORITY UNDER SIKH GURDAWARAS ACT) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, on 28th November 1964, accepting the nomination papers of respondent No. 2, Jagjit Singh, for elections to the Board (S. G. P. C.) under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. It is not disputed that an electoral roll had been prepared under the Punjab Representation on Sikh Gurdwaras Board (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1959 and published on 20th October 1964. Respondent No. 2 appears to have filed an application for his name being included in the roll as it did not appear there. This application under rule 5(2) of the aforesaid Rules had to be filed within six days of the publication of the electoral roll, but the aforesaid respondent filed the application for inclusion of his name on 9th November 1964. The main point which has, therefore, been taken in the petition is that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction or power to receive his application and direct that his name be entered in the roll as it has indeed been done by the Deputy Commissioner on 16th November 1964 which was the date for scrutiny of nomination papers. Respondent No. 2 had filed his nominations paper within time but the question was whether his name was on the roll at all or not and until he was registered as a voter he had naturally no right to file the nomination paper. Rule 5(2) is in clear and categorical terms and provides that If any person, who is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, finds that his name is not already included therein he must file an application to the Deputy Commissioner within six days of the publication of the electoral roll. In the present case in view of the admitted fact that the roll was published on 20th October 1964 respondent No. 2 could file the application only within six days of that date and his application, which was filed much later i.e. on 9th November 1934, could not be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner. There is no provision in the Rules for extension of time. Thus the Deputy Commissioner was bound to reject that application on the ground that it had not been filed within the time allowed by the Rules. If respondent No. 2 could not be registered as a voter, there was no question whatsoever of his nomination papers being accepted.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to decide the other point as to whether the scrutiny having already taken place on 16th November 1964 the nomination papers of respondent No. 2 which were received by the Returning Officer at 12 noon on that day could be rejected or not.