Civil Appeal Nos
1617 and 1640A of 1979
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 20 1 1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 884 of 1978
R P Bhatt and Sri Narain for the Appellant In CA 161779
G L Sahu and Miss Maya Ra for the Appellant In CA 1640A79 an R 54 in CA 161779
Shiv Shankar Rao H K Puri V K Bahl and Miss Madhu Moolchandani For RR 7 10 13 14 16 18 25 27 29 33 36 39 42 45 49 and 50 in CA 1617 and for RR 7 10 13 14 16 18 25 27 29 33 36 39 42 45 49  50 in CA 1640A79
section K Gambhir for RR
5 6 in CA 161779
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
For the purpose of holding election to the 
Municipal Corporation of Raipur in the month of December 1978 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1956 No 23 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act  the Collector of Raipur published the preliminary electoral roll on September 30 1978 under Rule 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Munici 493 pal Corporation Preparation Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors Rules 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Rules  promulgated under the Act by the Madhya Pradesh State Government and issued a public notice under Rule 41 of the Rules calling upon persons whose names had not been included in the electoral roll and who claimed to be included in i and persons who had any objection to the inclusion of the name of any person in the said electoral roll to submit their claims andor objections within 20 days from the date of the publication of the said notice before Shri K P Pande Deputy Collector Raipur who had been authorised to pass orders on such claims or objections
It was also notified that claims or objections which had not been preferred as required under the Rules within the prescribed period would be rejected
The final publication of the electoral roll under Rule 8 of the Rules was done on November 16 1978
Thereafter the calendar of events was published on November 25 1978 notifying that the poll if necessary would take place on December 31 1978 in all the 44 constituencies Six petitioners including the appellants herein presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on December 28 1978 requesting the Court to make an order quashing the electoral roll and the calendar of events issued for the purpose of the said election and directing the respondents to refrain from conducting the poll on December 31 1978
They prayed for a further direction to be issued to the respondents calling upon them to hold the election after preparing the electoral roll afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules
They also prayed for the issue of an interim order staying the poll which had been fixed to be held on December 31 1978
On December 30 1978 the learned Single Judge before whom the case came up for orders directed the issue of notice of the petition and the stay application to the respondents and issued an interim order directing the respondents not to notify the results of the election under Rule 46 of the Rules pending disposal of the petition
On December 31 1978 the poll was held and 44 persons were declared elected
Their names were however not published under Rule 46 of the Rules in view of the interim order made by the Court
Thereafter the successful candidates were also impleaded as respondents and the petition was amended by the inclusion of an additional prayer that the declaration of the results of the election should also be quashed
After the respondents filed their counter affidavits the petition was heard and it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on January 20 1979
Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court Ashok Kumar Mishra and Bhagwat Singh Thakur Petitioners No 1 and 5 respectively in the 494 petition before the High Court filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and Purshottam Lal Sharma petitioner No 6 before the High Court filed another petition
On special leave being granted the above petitions were registered as appeals
One of the grounds on which the appellants challenged the validity of the electoral roll the calendar of events and the declaration of results of election was that the entire election process had become vitiated on account of the defect in the notice issued under Rule 1 of the Rules notifying that claims and objections should be preferred within a period of 20 days from the date of the publication of that notice when sub rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules prescribed that such claims and objections could be preferred within 30 days from the date of publication of that notice
It was alleged that by reason of a shorter period being fixed for entertaining claims and objections a large number or people who could have filed claims and objections were prevented from preferring them within 30 days from the date of publication or the notice which was the prescribed period
It was alleged that petitioner No 5 had filed a claim to include his name in the electoral roll on October 19 1978 and that was rejected by the Deputy Collector without following the procedure prescribed for the purpose
It was also alleged that on October 20 1978 34 persons mentioned in Annexure P 7 approached the Deputy Collector to entertain their claim for inclusion in the electoral roll and he refused to receive their applications
It was contended that on account of noncompliance with Rule 43 of the Rules which was mandatory the entire election process held on the basis of the defective electoral roll 
became a nullity and that therefore the declaration of results of all the 44 successful candidates was liable to be quashed
On behalf of the respondents it was pleaded that while it was true that the period of 20 days had been mentioned in the notice issued under Rule 41 of the Rules it was open to all the persons who were interested in preferring claims or objections to file them within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice under Rule 41
It was pleaded that pursuant to the notice published under Rule 41 of the Rules only four claims including that of petitioner No S were received by the Deputy Collector that all the applicants were asked to appear on October 30 1978 to substantiate their claim and that the applications were disposed of on October 30 1978
The claim of petitioner No 5 was rejected as no evidence in support of his claim was produced before the Deputy Collector
It was further pleaded that no other claims or objections were preferred either on October 20 1978 or on any other sub sequent date
The allegation that 34 persons had approached the Deputy 495 Collector requesting him to receive their applications for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll on October 20 1978 was denied
They further pleaded that the authorities would have taken action to correct the error in the notice issued under Rule 41 of the Rules granting 20 days  time to prefer claims and objections if it had been brought to their notice by the petitioners immediately after it was noticed by them
The petitioners were not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution on account of the inordinate delay involved in the presentation of the writ petition
The High Court after hearing the parties dismissed the petition holding i that respondent No 2 the Deputy Collector had asked petitioner No S to appear before him on October 30 1978 and that as he did not produce any evidence in support of his claim his application was dismissed ii that none of the persons mentioned in Annexure P 7 preferred any claim before respondent No 2 on October 20 1978 and that he did not refuse to receive any such claim and that no person preferred any claim or objection after October 19 1978 before respondent No 2 and iii that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as they had approached the Court after undue delay
Since one of the grounds on which the High Court dismissed the petition was that the petitioners were not prompt in moving the High Court we shall first examine whether the High Court was right in doing so since if we agree with the High Court on the above question it would become unnecessary to go into the other questions raised before us
The Collector published the notice under Rule 41 of the Rules on September 30 1978 and also called upon interested persons to prefer claims andor objections thereto within a period of 20 days
In paragraph 7 of the notice it was mentioned that claims and objections received beyond the prescribed period would not be considered
The period prescribed for preferring claims and objections under Rule 43 was 30 days
It is not the case of the petitioners that they did not know immediately after the publication of such notice that in the said notice a period of 20 days had been mentioned in its preamble as the period within which the claims and objections could be preferred and in paragraph 7 thereof it had been stated that any such claim or objection filed beyond the prescribed period was liable to be rejected
If they felt that the said notice suffered from any illegality they could have brought it to the notice of the Collector immediately 496 thereafter
It was open to them to move the State Government under Rule 6 of the Rules to make an order directing the Collector to follow 
the provisions governing the preparation of the electoral roll
It was also open to them to file a writ petition immediately after the publication of the said notice questioning its legality
None of the above courses was adopted by the petitioners
Persons whose claims were rejected could have filed an appeal under Rule S before the Collector
No such appeal was presented
The final electoral roll was published on November 16 1978
It was notified that the nominations could be filed on and after November 25 1978 and the poll if necessary would take place on December 31 1978
After November 25 1978 a large number of nominations were received by the Returning officer
It was only on December 5 1978 for the first time that a letter was addressed by petitioner No 6 to the Collector drawing his attention to the error that had crept into the notice published under Rule 41 of the Rules
By that time the nominations had all been received
The final list of candidates for the election with their symbols was published on December 20 1978
The writ petition itself was filed on December 28 198 when the poll had to take place on December 31 1978
When the petition came up for order on December 29 l 978 it had to be adjourned to December 30 1978 at the request of the counsel for the petitioners
No satisfactory explanation was given in the course of the petition by the petitioners as to why they delayed the filing of the petition till December 28 1978 even though they knew that there was an error in the notice issued under Rule 41 of the Rules in the month of October 1978 more than two months before the date on which i was filed
It was however argued before us relying upon a news item which had appeared in a daily called Nav Bharat  dated October 21 1978 in which there was a reference to a statement made by the Minister for Local Self Government of Madhya Pradesh regarding the irregularity in the division of Raipur town into different wards for purposes of election
It was also stated therein that in the course of the discussion with the press reporters on that day the Minister had stated that he had directed the Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur that the date for inclusion of names in the electoral roll could be extended if the election date was not affected
There was a further reference to dates of election to Bilaspur Municipal Committee having been adjourned twice before
It is difficult to place any reliance on the above news item for the purpose of concluding that the Collector Raipur had been informed about the defect in the notice issued under Rule 41 of the Rules by October 21 1978
The other documents produced alongwith the writ petition referred to omissions of certain names from the electoral roll
They do not show that any 497 of the petitioners had raised any objection with regard to the date within which the claims and objections could be preferred to the electoral roll mentioned in the notice
We have therefore to proceed on the basis that it was only on December S 1978 for the first time that the attention of the Collector was drawn to the said error and that the writ petition itself was presented on December 28 1978
No satisfactory reason for the delay was set out in the petition
It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary and if the High Court finds that there is not satisfactory explanation far the inordinate delay it may reject the petition if it finds that the issue of Writ will lead to public inconvenience and interference with rights of others
This rule applies also to a case in which the validity of an election to a local authority is challenged
The question whether in a given case the delay involved is such that it dissentients a person to relief under Article 226 is a matter within the discretion of the High Court which as in all matters of discretion has to exercise it judiciously and reasonably having regard to the surrounding circumstances
We are not therefore impressed by the argument that the petitioners were entitled to the issue of the writ prayed for as of right and the delay in filing the petition should have been ignored
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in preferring it
We therefore find it unnecessary to deal with the other points urged before us
For the foregoing reasons the appeals fail and arc dismissed
We make no order as to costs


Summary:
On September 30 1978 the Collector published the preliminary electoral roll under Rule 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Preparation Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors Rules 1963 for the purpose of holding elections in December 1978 to the Municipal Corporation and also issued a notice under the said rule inviting claims or objections to be filed within twenty days from the date of publication of the notice
A period of 30 days was however actually provided in the rule
The final publication of the electoral roll was made on November 16 1978
After November 25 1978 a large number of nominations were received by the Returning officer arid the final list of candidates for the elections with their symbols was published on December 20 1978 and the poll took place on December 31 1978
The appellants Petitioners 1 5 and 6 along with some others in their writ petition filed on December 28 1978 contended that the entire election process had become vitiated on account of the defect in the notice issued by the Collector under Rule 4 1 providing 20 days for preferring claims and objections while the rule prescribed 30 days and that by non compliance with this mandatory requirement the entire election process held on the basis of the defective electoral roll became a nullity and therefore the declaration of results of the successful candidates was liable to be quashed
The High Court held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief as they had approached the Court after undue delay
Dismissing the appeals this Court  HELD 1
It is well settled that the power of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary and if the High Court finds that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay it may reject the petition if it finds that the issue of writ will lead to public inconvenience and interference with rights of others
This rule applies also to a case in which the validity of an election to a local authority is challenged
The question whether in a given case
the delay involved 
is such that it dissentients a person to relief 
under article 226 is a matter within the discretion of the High Court which as in all matters of 492 discretion has to exercise it judiciously and reasonably having regard to The surrounding circumstances
497C D 2
If the appellants felt that the notice under Rule 43 suffered from any illegality they could have brought it to the notice of the Collector immediately Thereafter
It was open them to move the State Government under Rule 6 of the Rules to make an order directing the Collector to follow the provisions governing the preparation or the electoral roll
It was also open to them to file a writ petition immediately after the publication of the said notice questioning its legality
None of the above courses was adopted by the appellants
Persons whole claims were rejected could have filed an appeal under Rule 5 before the Collector
No such appeal was presented
495H 496B 3
It was only on December 5 1978 for the first time a letter was addressed by one of the petitioners to the Collector drawing his attention to the error that had crept into the notice under Rule 41 of the Rules
By that time the nominations had all been received
The final list of candidates for the election with their symbols was published on December 20 1978
The writ petition itself was filed on December 28 1978 when the poll had to take place on December 31 1978
No satisfactory explanation was given in the course of the petition by the petitioners as to why they delayed the filing of the petition till December 28 1978 even though they knew that there was an error in the notice issued under Rule 41
496C E