=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.696 OF 2008 NO.696 OF 2008 NO.696 OF 2008 Shri Sandip Gopalrao Gulave ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr V.M. Parshurami i/b Mr Ashish S. Gaikwad for Petitioner. Ms S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr V.A. Gangal for Respondent Nos.2 and 8. Mr S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No.3. Mr P.N. Joshi for Respondent Nos.4, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 =2= P.C.- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the elections held in 2007 for the office of the Chairman of Education Committee (Primary) of respondent No.2 - Nasik Municipal Corporation. The relevant facts are that in February 2007 elections of the Nasik Municipal Corporation were held. Thereafter. on 15th June 2007, the elections of Education Committee (Primary) of the Corporation were held and petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 14 were declared as elected as members of the Education Committee (Primary). A Notification was issued on 13th December 2007 declaring the names of elected members and nominated members of the Education Committee (Primary) of Nasik Municipal Corporation. On 20th December 2007, the respondent No.18, who was a Returning Officer, issued notice convening a meeting of the Education Board (Primary) for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman. The meeting was held on 2nd January 2008. The petitioner contested for the office of the Chairman. The respondent No.13 also contested for that office. Both secured equal votes, therefore lots were drawn and respondent No.13 was declared as elected as Chairman. The challenge to the election of respondent No.13 as Chairman is on two counts. According to the petitioner, Rule 8 of Bombay =3= Primary Education Rules 1949 requires that the names of the members of the School Board shall be published in the Official Gazette by the Government. According to the petitioner, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rules 8 and 10 of the said Rules, a date for the meeting for election of the Chairman could have been fixed and election ought to have been held only after the names of members of the Board are published in the Official Gazette. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the names were actually published on 3rd January 2008, therefore the election of the Chairman held on 2nd January 2008 is illegal. According to the learned counsel, Rule 8 is mandatory. He also relies on the judgment of the leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Laxman R. Vajage v/s Collector of Bombay and others, reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 48. The second challenge is that while drawing lots, the Returning Officer wrote the names of the contesting candidates on a thin paper and folded them in such a manner that the person who picked the chit could read the name. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the process adopted for drawing of lots was unfair. Now, so far as the first contention is concerned, it is Rules 8 and 10 of the said Rules which are relevant, they read as under :- "8. Publication of names of members of a =4= School Board :- he names of all the members of a School Board elected and appointed or nominated by the State Government shall be published in the Official Gazette by Government. 10. Calling of a meeting for the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman :- The first meeting of School Board shall be convened for the purpose of the election of a Chairman and a Vice Chairman. Such meeting shall be convened by the President of the District Local Board or the authorised municipality, as soon as convenient, but not later than twenty one days after the publication of the names of the members of the School Board in the Official Gazette and a copy of the notice of such meeting shall be sent to the Educational Inspector." . Perusal of provisions of Rule 8 shows that there is a statutory requirement of the names of the members of the School Board being published in the Official Gazette. Perusal of provisions of Rule 10 shows that it lays down that the meeting of the School Board for the purpose of electing Chairman and Vice Chairman is to be held as soon as convenient and it =5= gives outer limit for holding the meeting by providing that the meeting shall not be delayed beyond the period of 21 days from the date of publication of names of members of the School Board in Official Gazette. The said provision cannot be read to mean that meeting of the School Board for the purpose of electing Chairman and Vie Chairman cannot be held without publishing the names in the Official Gazette. In our opinion, the mandate of Rule 10 is that the meeting should be held as early as possible and therefore, holding of meeting cannot be dependant on the circumstance like publication of the names in the Official Gazette. The judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel deals with the requirements of publication of instructions issued by the Government which are of general nature. The Court has held that because the instructions of general nature are to be followed by public, it is mandatory that they are published in the Official Gazette. Nobody can deny the requirement of publishing the names of members of the School Board in the Official Gazette. That publication is to be done by the State Government. There is no time limit for the State Government to do it. In our opinion, therefore, it will not be prudent to postpone the process of election till the publication takes place. In our opinion, there is no substance in the first contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner. To satisfy us about the =6= second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, we called for the record from the Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation produced before us the original record maintained by the Corporation. Perusal of that record shows that the basic contention of the petitioner that for writing the names of contesting candidates thin paper was used, has no foundation. The paper used was sufficiently thick and it is not possible to read the names on that paper once the paper is folded. In any case, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the process adopted by the Returning Officer. In our opinion, there is no substance in the petition. Petition is therefore dismissed, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)