Case: Chief Commissioner, Ajmer Vs. Radhey Shyam Dani

and objections to such enrolments. The amendment did not obviate the necessity of taking these further steps in spite of the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency being treated as the electoral roll of the Municipality. By thus treating the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency as the basis for the electoral roll of the Municipality, the trouble and expenses involved in the preparation of the electoral roll for the Municipality were saved but the Municipality was not absolved from the obligation of providing for the revision of such electoral roll as well as the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and objections to such enrolment.11. When the Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules, 1955 came to be framed in exercise of the power conferred by S. 43 of the Regulation, the Chief Commissioner framed R. 7 which provided that the electoral roll for the particular Municipality shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary Constituency representing the area covered by the Municipality. He dispensed with the independent preparation by the Municipality of the electoral roll but did nothing further. Rule 9 provided that no person shall be deemed to be an elector for the purpose of the rules unless his name appeared in the electoral rolls mentioned above. That had reference obviously to the second condition prescribed in S.30, sub-s.(2) of the Regulation but did not go far enough. It did not say that a person whose name appeared in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency was to be deemed to be an elector for the purposes of the Rules so as to obviate the necessity of fulfilling the first condition therein prescribed and rightly so, because, if it did say so, it would be in conflict with S.30, sub-s. (2) of the Regulation. These rules did not eliminate the scrutiny which could be made at the instance of the parties concerned as to whether a person whose name was registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency wag in fact entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950 ) to be so registered and whether he possessed the qualifications prescribed in that Act in this behalf nor did they eliminate the further scrutiny for, the purpose of the revision of such electoral roll or the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and objections to such enrolment.12. It is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinize whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned.It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective.13. It was urged that the expression "the final printed roll for the Parliamentary Constituency" predicated that the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency had been finalised after going through the whole procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) and. therefore, there was no necessity for making any further provision of that nature in the matter of the electoral roll of the Municipality. This contention is unsound for the simple reason that by using this phraseology the whole of the procedure laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) is not bodily incorporated in the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925).14. Neither the Regulation nor the rules which have been framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 43 of the Regulation make any mention of any such incorporation nor is it possible to urge that, merely because the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency was treated as the basis for the electoral roll of the Municipality, these provisions were bodily incorporated in the Rules. If Rr. 7 and 9 above referred to were intended to form a complete code for the finalisation of the electoral roll of the Municipality they did not serve the intended purpose and were either inconsistent with the provisions of S. 30, sub-s. (2) of the Regulation or were defective in so far as they failed to provide the proper procedure for taking of the steps hereinabove indicated for finalising the electoral roll of the Municipality. If that was the true position the electoral roll of the Municipality which had been authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955, was certainly not an electoral roll prepared in accordance with law on the basis of which the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee could be held either on September 9, 1955, or at any time thereafter.15. In the view which we hold, it is not necessary to consider whether, in the event of an inconsistency between S. 30, sub-s. (2) of the Regulation and the Rules framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred under S.43 of the Regulation, the section would prevail or the Rules.Suffice it to say that the electoral roll of the Ajmer Municipality which was authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955 was not in conformity with the provisions of S. 3 sub-s. (2) and the relevant provisions of the regulation and could not form the basis of any valid elections to be held to the Ajmer Municipal Committee.16.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. It is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinize whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned.It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective.This contention is unsound for the simple reason that by using this phraseology the whole of the procedure laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) is not bodily incorporated in the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925).Neither the Regulation nor the rules which have been framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 43 of the Regulation make any mention of any such incorporation nor is it possible to urge that, merely because the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency was treated as the basis for the electoral roll of the Municipality, these provisions were bodily incorporated in the Rules. If Rr. 7 and 9 above referred to were intended to form a complete code for the finalisation of the electoral roll of the Municipality they did not serve the intended purpose and were either inconsistent with the provisions of S. 30, sub-s. (2) of the Regulation or were defective in so far as they failed to provide the proper procedure for taking of the steps hereinabove indicated for finalising the electoral roll of the Municipality. If that was the true position the electoral roll of the Municipality which had been authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955, was certainly not an electoral roll prepared in accordance with law on the basis of which the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee could be held either on September 9, 1955, or at any time thereafter.In the view which we hold, it is not necessary to consider whether, in the event of an inconsistency between S. 30, sub-s. (2) of the Regulation and the Rules framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred under S.43 of the Regulation, the section would prevail or the Rules.Suffice it to say that the electoral roll of the Ajmer Municipality which was authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955 was not in conformity with the provisions of S. 3 sub-s. (2) and the relevant provisions of the regulation and could not form the basis of any valid elections to be held to the Ajmer Municipal Committee.