Case: Chief Commissioner, Ajmer Vs. Radhey Shyam Dani

1. This is an appeal with special leave from the judgement of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, restraining the District Magistrate, Ajmer, from holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9,1955.2. The respondent claimed to be a voter of the Ajmer Municipality. By an order dated March 12, 1953, the Ajmer Municipal Committee had been suspended and that suspension was to continue till September 11,In view of the impending elections after the period of suspension was over, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, the appellant before us, framed the Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules, 1955, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 43 of the Ajmer- Merwara Municipalities Regulation 1925 (VI of 1925) and published them in the Government Gazette dated August 4,On August 8, 1955, he notified an election programme and also authenticated and published an electoral roll. This electoral roll had been corrected and altered by the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer on certain days prior to August 8, 1955, but the respondents name was alleged to have been incorrectly described therein, his fathers name having been mentioned as Ratan Lal instead of Chitar Mal. On August 101 1955, he applied for the correction of his fathers name in the Parliamentary Electoral roll and on August 16, 1955, he filed the nomination paper. His nomination was, however, rejected on August 17, 1955, the Returning Officer stating that he was not one of the electors according to the roll. His application for rectification of the mistake in the Parliamentary Electoral Roll was also rejected on August 18, 1955, by the Electoral Registration Officer on the ground that the roll of the Municipal elections had been finally published on August 18, 1955, and therefore no correction could be made. The respondent thereupon filed on August 26, 1955, a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 108 of 1955 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer against the appellant and the District Magistrate, Ajmer, inter alia for a mandamus against the appellant to reconstitute the Ajmer Municipal Committee by a properly made and published notification under S. 8(1) of the Regulation and an order against the District Magistrate, Ajmer, restraining him from holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9, 1955, as notified.3. The learned Judicial Commissioner upheld the contention of the respondent in regard to the reconstitution of the Committee but did not issue any directions in regard to the same in view of the fact that the appellant had already before that date issued a notification under S.8 (1) of the Regulation to reconstitute the Committee. He also held R.7 of the Election Rules was not in consonance with and was in contradiction to S. 30, sub-s.(2) of the Regulation and was in excess of rule-making power conferred upon him, and the elections proposed to be held of Sept. 9, 1955, were not lawful. He, therefore, directed the District Magistrate, Ajmer, to refrain from holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9, 1955.4. On an application made by the appellant for a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, the learned Judicial Commissioner was of opinion that the direction given by him against the District Magistrate, Ajmer, was merely not to hold elections on September 9, 1955, and as that date had already passed when the application was disposed of by him, no useful purpose would be served by granting him a certificate and he accordingly refused to grant the same. The appellant, however, approached this Court and obtained special leave under Art. 136 for filing an appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner.

Court's reasoning:
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.