R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals 251 and 252 of 1968, directed against the orders, dated March 13, 1968, of a learned Single Judge of this Court. They arise out of the following circumstances:
(2.) TWO writ petitions Nos. 2010 and 2011 of 1967 were instituted by Karam Singh and Bachan Singh, respectively, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raising - identical questions. The Petitioners in both these cases had been elected as members of the Municipal Committee, Kharar. The programme of the fresh election drawn up in accordance with Rule 3 of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), was issued and duly published by the Deputy Commissioner, Rupar. Karam Singh and Bachan Singh, Writ Petitioners filed their nomination papers before Respondent No. 2 on August 25, 1967, for election to the Municipal Committee from Wards Nos. 8 and 10, respectively. On September 2, 1967, the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, an objection was raised as to the eligibility of the Petitioners for contesting the election on the ground that they had failed to pay up certain amounts due to the Municipality in spite of special demand notices, dated April 21, 1967, served upon them by the Municipal Committee. Both the Petitioners were entrusted with certain amounts in connection with the construction of Octroi barrier -cum -octroi post. Karam Singh was given a sum of Rs. 1,765 which was partly advanced in December 1966 and partly in January 1967. Similarly, Bachan Singh Petitioner was advanced for the same purpose, Rs. 1,250 on November 21, 1966 and a further sum of Rs. 739.25 on December 10, 1966. They did not render accounts with regard to these sums entrusted to them. Consequently, on April 21, 1967, the Municipal Committee sent notices individually to Karam Singh and Bachan Singh, Writ Petitioners, the material part of which, being identical , reads as follow: It has been brought to my notice that the sum of Rupees...on account of advance for the construction of Morinda Road Barrier were received by you during the month of...but the account of above advance does not appear to have been received in this office which may please be sent within two days positively, failing which serious action will be taken in the matter. This may be treated most urgent.
(3.) KARAM Singh sent his reply to the notice on April 27, 1967, rendering a sort of account of a total amount of Rs. 1,501.59 which he allegedly expended towards the work entrusted to him. He added that he had overspent Rs. 101.59 from his own pocket. The Administrator of Municipality thereupon wrote the letter, Annexure 'C to the writ petition, raising several audit objections and requesting Karam Singh, Petitioner to explain the same within two days for further action. In response, Karam Singh sent the reply, dated August 2, 1967 Annexure 'D', which is alleged to have been received in the office of the Municipality on August 17, 1967. Similarly, Bachan Singh, Writ Petitioner, sent his reply, dated January 28, 1967, giving an account of a sum of Rs. 1,750 allegedly expended by him. Thus, he said that the whole of the amount advanced to him had been expended and no amount was due from him. He requested that a clearance certificate be issued to him. He also stated that a balance of Rs. 101.60 was payable to Amar Singh, contractor. The Administrator of the Municipality then wrote the letter, dated July 24, 1967, Annexure 'C raising some objections and seeking clarifications within two days. Bachan Singh then sent clarifications by his letter, dated August 9, 1967.;