RAKESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. S.K. DUTTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 21 -1 -1956, passed by Sri S. K. Dutta, District Judge at Silchar, in Election Case No. G Of 1955.

(2.) THE Petitioner, who is a defeated candidate, filed an election petition under Section 6 , Assam Local Self -Government Act (25 of 1953), challenging the election of the returned candidate Sri Nirmal Kumar Purkayastha, Respondent No. 2 to this application, on various grounds. The election impugned relates to constituency No. IX Badarpur I of the Karimganj Sub -division and was held with reference to the Karimganj Local Board. It appears that there were three candidates nominated for the election, of whom Nirmal Kumar purkayastha (Respondent No, 2) secured 1142 votes, it being the highest number of votes polled; the Petitioner Rakesh Chandra Das secured 878 votes, while the other candidate, Sri Nanda Kumar Das, who is also a Respondent to this application, secured 763 votes. The main grounds on which the election was challenged by the Petitioner are: - (1) that the returning officer had acted illegally in accepting the nomination of the Respondent Nanda Kumar Das; and (2) that the Deputy Commissioner had not given due publicity to the location of the polling station in Circle No. 13, which was one of the circles in the Badarpur Police Station, for purposes of polling, as a result of which there was much confusion and .the voters in that circle were not able to exercise their right of franchise.

(3.) IN dealing with the question of illegal nomination, the learned District Judge found that the acceptance of the nomination of Nanda Kumar Das by the returning officer was improper, but he was of the view that that did not materially affect the result of the election and, therefore, he refused to set aside the election on that ground. On the other question also, the learned District Judge held that there was violation of R. 14 of the rules in not giving due notice to the public of the polling stations. He pointed out that the date for polling was 10 -4 -55, but the notices thereof were received by the Secretaries of the panchayats on 8 -4 -55, that is to say, only a couple of days earlier. He naturally characterised this short notice as bad enough; but he pointed out that was not all.