JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the elections to the Sangaria Municipality. The petition was contested on behalf of the Collector, Ganganagar, the Returning Officer, and four of the elected members.
(2.) THE main ground taken in the petition was that no notification appointing the date of election was published in the Gazette as required under sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). At the hearing it was pointed out by the respondents that a notification under sec. 23 was issued by the Collector, Ganganagar, on 29th of March, 1961 and was published in the Official Gazette dated 6th of April, 1961. THE learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that the election was vitiated by the non-compliance of clause (5) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Order ). Before dealings with this matter, it is necessary to state a few facts. After the coming into force of the Art of 1959, the Director of Local Bodies addressed a general letter to all Collectors drawing their attention to the provisions of sec. 13 under which the municipality was to be divided into as many wards as the number of general seats and asking them to appoint Returning Officers for such municipalities, the terms of which were to expire within the next six months, and to direct them to send proposals for the delimitation of wards by 30th April, 1960. It may be mentioned here that municipalities functioning under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 had multi-member wards. On receipt of the above letter, an office note was put up before the Collector of Ganganagar recommending that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh may be appointed Returning Officer for Sangaria Municipality. The Collector approved the proposal on 30th April, 1960 and the following office order was thereupon issued: " I, B. P. Sood, Collector, Ganganagar, do hereby nominate the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hanumangarh as my nominee under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Appointment of Members/councillors by co-option) Order 1959 and Rule 2 (11) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election of chairman, Vice-chairman, President, Vice President) Rules, 1959, for the preparation of Electoral Rolls, Co-option of two lady members and conducting the elections of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Municipal Board, Sangaria. Please chalk out an election programme and proceed further according to rules. Sd/- B. P. Sood, Collector Ganganagar, Dated 4. 5. 60" Under the above order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh submitted proposal for the delimitation of the constituencies to Government and acted as Returning Officer both under sec 20 of the Act and under clause (5) of the Election Order. The mother of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate fell ill and he proceeded on leave on 16th March, 1961. Later on, she expired and a proposal was put up by the office to appoint some other officer as Returning Officer for conducting the elections for this Municipality. On this proposal the Collector passed the following order on 19th March, 1961 ******* on 19th March, 1961, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh in his capacity as Returning Officer, Sangaria Municipality moved the Collector to postpone the date of election. On this the date of election was postponed from 24th April, 1961 to 15th May, 1961 by the Collector. Shri Achal Singh, who was working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, was transferred before the date fixed for holding the election, and Shri K. L. Pareekh was appointed as Returning Officer, Sangaria Municipality by the Collector on 13th May, 1961 under the following order "consequent upon the transfer of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh. who was appointed as a Returning Officer, for conducting the general election of Municipal Board, Sangaria and under the circumstances that his relief has not so for joined, I Champa Lal Kochar, R. A. S. , Collector, Ganganagar, do hereby appoint Shri K. L. Pareek, R. A. S. , Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Ganganagar, to be the Returning Officer for conducting the general election of Municipal Board, Sangaria, as per programme already published. Sd/- Collector, Shri Ganganagar. " Clause (6) of the Election order provides that the Collector shall appoint a person to be the Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting election immediately after a date has been appointed for holding general election by a notification under sec. 23. In the present case, the election was to take place on 24th April, 1961. This date was altered to 15th May, 1961 under a notification dated 29th March, 1961, published in the Gazette dated 6th April, 1961. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no order of the Collector appointing the Returning Officer as contemplated by clause (5) of the Election Order in the present case and that the election which was held was vitiated on account of the absence of such an order. I am unable to accept this contention. The order appointing a Returning Officer to conduct the election is not required to be in any particular form. Nor is it required to be published. All that is required, in my opinion, is that a Gazetted Officer should be appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct the election and that this appointment should be made by the Collector. So long as there is no uncertainty as to who is the Returning Officer and there is no doubt that he has been appointed by the Collector, the time and manner of the appointment are, in my opinion procedural details, non-compliance of which is merely an irregularity which does not vitiate the election. The Election Order, no doubt, contemplates that the Returning Officer under clause (5) shall be appointed after the publication of the notification under sec. 23. Mandatory language has been used in this clause. But it does not appear to me that even if the Returning Officer is appointed before the publication of the notice under sec. 23 and material difference would be caused. Every procedural provision does not have some public policy behind it. The provision contained in clause (5), in my opinion, directing that the Returning Officer shall be appointed after notice under sec. 23 has been published, has no public policy behind it. On the contrary, in my opinion, the emphasis is rather on the appointment not being delayed much beyond the publication of this notification. I, therefore, hold that the provision contained in clause (5) directing that the Returning Officer shall be appointed after the publication of the notification under sec. 23 is not mandatory. What is mandatory is that a Gazetted Officer should be appointed as Returning Officer and that the Collector shall appoint him. No form for the order of appointment has been prescribed. Nor is it prescribed that the order of the Collector appointing the Returning Officer shall be published. The Returning Officer so appointed issues a public notice under clause (7) It is from this public notice that the electorate presumes that the appointment has been made by the Collector. Coming now to the particular facts of the present case, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh was appointed as the Returning Officer by the order of the Collector dated 30th April, 1960 with the intention that he should send proposals for the delimitation of wards and should act as Returning Officer for all purposes till the Sangaria Municipal Board was completely formed. The office order dated 5th April, 1960, which was issued under the signatures of the Collector reflects this intention, although by oversight an express mention of the conducting of elections has been omitted. There can, however, be no doubt that by his order dated 30th April, 1960, the Collector intended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh should act as Returning Officer under the Election Order also. He actually worked as Returning Officer till he was transferred and Shri K. L. Pareekh was appointed in his place by the order dated 13th May, 1961 referred to above. There can be no doubt that he acted as Returning Officer because the Collector had appointed him. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector gets jurisdiction to appoint Returning Officer under clause (5) only after the notification under sec. 23 has been published, and an order passed before the publication of such a notification is a nullity. I am unable to accept this argument. Even if it is assumed that only the publication of the notification under sec. 23 gives jurisdiction to the Collector to appoint the Returning Officer, the act of appointing the Returning Officer is purely a ministerial act and an appointment made before the publication of the notification will acquire validity as soon as the notification is published. It will also validate all the acts of the Returning Officer which he might have performed before the date of the publication of the notification. I, therefore, hold that the election was not vitiated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. The order staying the election of the Chairman is discharged. .;