- (1.) IN these connected writ petitions (Civil Writs 212 to 217 of 1959) we are concerned with the municipal elections of Morinda Municipal Committee held this year and they will all be disposed of by this order.
(2.) IN Civil Writ 212 of 1959, Lacuhman Singh and Jati Ram are the petitioners, Lachhman singh being a voter in Ward No. 4 of the Municipal Committee, Morinda, and Jati Ram petitioner No. 2 being the defeated candidate in the election held on 26-2-1959. Respondents nos. 4 to 11 are the successful candidates from the six Wards of the Municipal Committee. Nomination papers were filed on 5-1-1959; 24-1-1959 was the date fixed for withdrawal of candidature and polling took place on 20-2-1959. It is alleged in the petition that the State of Punjab respondent No. 1 published a notification dated 11-4-1958 (Annexure 'a' attached to the petition) under Section 240 of the Punjab municipal Act and rules made thereunder, by which the Municipality of Morinda was divided into six wards; be-fore doing so, another notification dated 14/18th of May 1957 containing draft rules had been published and objections were invited as required by the provisions of Section 240 of the Act. Later on a notification dated 30-10-1958 (Annexure 'b' annexed to the petition) superseded the earlier notification dated 11-4-1958. It is averred in the petition that since the previous notification dated 11-4-1958 was superseded, a fresh notification containing the draft rules was necessary under the law. The validity and legality of the notification dated 30-10-1958 is assailed on this ground. It is then alleged in the petition, that before the delimitation of the Constituencies for the purposes of the impugned election, the boundaries of the wards as fixed previous to 1957 were entirely different and it was in the circumstances necessary that before any variation in the wards could be made, there should Have been a valid delimitation of the constituencies for the purpose of holding the impugned elections. The electoral rolls prepared for the Punjab Legislative Assembly for Morinda town published on 17-12-1958 were, according to the petition, adopted, as the electoral rolls for the elections in dispute, ia an illegal manner. This electoral roll does not divide Morinda town into any wards; it merely contains the names of voters without making any reference to the parts of the Municipal town of Morinda. This list, it is alleged, was really prepared for the purposes of elections to the Punjab Legislative assembly from Rupar Constituency. It is then alleged that by means of a letter dated 31-12-1958 (Annexure 'c' attached to the petition) the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, directed the President of the Municipal Committee, Morinda, that the voters in the above electoral rolls should be distributed in six Wards as given in the key chart attached to the letter. This key-chart, the petition continues, was prepared without giving any notice to the voters of the Morinda Municipal Committee and without inviting objections thereto. It was a document prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, ex partc and was signed by the Election kanungo, Tehsildar Elections, Amhala, Returning Officer, Ambala, and Deputy Commissioner, ambala. The electoral rolls and the key-chart arc alleged to be null, void and ineffective on the grounds that- (1) No objections were invited regarding entries in the electoral roll; nor were any claims invited. In other words the procedure for revising the electoral rolls for the purpose of Municipal elections was not followed at all. (2) The adoption of the electoral roll prepared for the Assembly Constituency does not eliminate the further steps in the matter of revision of the electoral roll as also the adjudication of claims for being enrolled and the objections thereto, and (3) The preparation of the electoral roll and the division of the roll by assigning electoral numbers in each ward could be done only by the State Government under Section 240 and not by the Deputy Commissioner, the Returning Officer, the Election Tehsildar or the Election kanungo. The key-chart is further alleged to be null and void on the ground that there is no provision of law for making such a chart and Section 240 of the Municipal Act does not justify the arbitrary selection of voters without any basis and assigning them to a particular ward. The following mistakes are also pointed out in the said key-chart: (a) Voters have been declared in the ward in which they do not reside; (b) Dead voters have been declared voters in different wards; and (c) Voters no longer residing within the Municipal limits of the town were also declared voters in the said key-chart. The arbitrary action of the Deputy Commissioner etc. is alleged to be wholly unauthorised and unwarranted by the statutory provision or the rules made thereunder. Reliance has also been placed on Rule 6 of the Municipal Election Rules which lays down that no person should be held entitled to vote unless his name is entered as a voter in relation to the ward concerned. The counsel has also in this connection referred me to the definition of "roll" and "constituency" contained in Rule 2 (d) and (a) respectively. "roll" means the roll of persons entitled to vote at an election under these rules and "constituency" means a class or ward, for the representation of which a member or members is or are to be or has or have been elected under these rules. The counsel submits that the electoral roll in question does not divide itself into wards and ihe letter from the Deputy Commissioner is absolutely of no avail because, apart from other reasons, the Government does not even take responsibility either for issuing that letter or for the accuracy of its contents. It is also submitted that the impugned rolls in the municipal elections in question were never legally adopted and indeed no objections were ever invited even for assigning voters to the various wards.
(3.) IN support of his contention the counsel has principally relied on two cases. In Chief commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, (S) AIR 1957 SC 304, the Ajmer Morwara municipalities Regulation (6 of 1925) and Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules. 1955, were considered by the Supreme Court. Support is sought by the counsel from the following observations of Bhagwati J. , in para 12 of the report: "it is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinize whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. ";