RAM CHANDRA MALPANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions arise out of the general election held on the 24th May 1962 of the Jorhat Municipality. Common points have been raised in all these petitions.

(2.) RULE No. 216 of 1962 arises out of the petition filed by one Ram Chandra Malpani, whose name is enterea in the voters list of Ward No. v. of the Jorhat Municipality. In the final electoral roll his name is numbered 494. His grievance is that Rule 11 of the Rules framed for the election of the Commissioners of the Municipal Boards under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 which provides that any claim for the insertion of "the names in the electoral roil and any objection' to any entry in the preliminary electoral roll arc to be preferred to the Magistrate within seven days of the publication of the preliminary electoral roll, was violated in the present case. The date of the election was fixed by the Magistrate on the 24th May 1962. mis was published in the Assam Gazette on the 12th January 1962, with detailed programme of the various steps that had to be taken in the conduct of the election. The preliminary voters list was published on the 23rd March 1962 and in the programme set out by the Magistrate the date for filing claims and objections under Rule 11 was fixed on the 29th March 1962 and 30th March 1962 was fixed for the hearing of the claims and objections under Rule 17. The date for publication of the final electoral roll was fixed on the 21st April 1962 and the last date for the submission of the nomination papers was fixed on the 25th April 1962.

(3.) RULE No. 218 of 1962 arises out of the petition filed by Bahekhari Ram Sahu alias Bhikhari. He is not a registered voter. His grievance is that the provisions of Rule 11 were violated. He avers in paragraph 7 of nis petition that he filed a petition in the prescribed form on the 30th March claiming that he fulfilled all the qualifications required for being a voter in Ward No. IV for the election of the Commissioner in that Ward and that his name should accordingly be inserted. In paragraph 8 states that his petition though otherwise perfect and in order was not accepted and returned to him on the ground that ' the last date for preferring a claim had already elapsed.