SPORSOMANICK SIEM Vs. ROKENDRO, EXECUTIVE MEMBER IN CHARGE OF RURAL ADMINISTRATION, DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a resident of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills and lives in Mylliem Stale. On 6th April 1962 a Purwana was issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee, District Council, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills to 46 electors asking the in to nominate a Siem in place of U Jormanik within 20 days from the date of that Purwana. It was alleged that a Durbar was held on the 19th April, 1962 and on 24th April, 1962 and in that Durbar some electors nominated U Franciswell as Siem of Mylliem. All the electors did not attend the Durbar and those electors had also right to nominate somebody else for the Siemship within the time fixed. On the 23rd April, 1962 before the time fixed for nominating a Siem by the electors expired, one U Kshvin Myntri filed a petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid Purwana and this Court by its order dated 24th April 1962 issued a rule on this petition and stayed the election of the Siem. The stay order passed by the High Court was subsequently vacated as the petition was rejected. The appointment, however, of U Franciswell was approved by the District Council on the 14th May 1963. Some objections had been filed to the nomination of U Francis well.

(2.) THE contention of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner's name could not be nominated as before the expiry of 20 days from the date of issue of the Purwana requiring the electors to nominate persons for Siemship, this Court had issued a stay order. The electors were misled and could not file the Petitioner's nomination. The Petitioner's further contention is that as there was no publication of the result of the election, under Section 5 of the United Khasi -Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the Petitioner who is concerned with the election of the Siem, could not within 30 days from the publication refer the dispute for decision to the Executive Committee, against whose order an appeal is provided for to the tribunal constituted under the Act and the Petitioner has also prayed for the constitution of the tribunal to decide the election dispute. The contention is that under Section 5 there is a statutory obligation on the authorities to publish the election result, so as to enable the party concerned to file objection and refer the mailer for decision to the Executive Committee. In effect thus the Petitioner claims a mandamus directing the opposite parties to publish the result of the election so as to enable the Petitioner to refer the dispute to the Executive Committee. In paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated us follows:

(3.) THE Petitioner urges that as there was another nomination of U Stonely Maaick, the matter should have been referred to the electors for their votes, and in substance there was no election at all in the present case.