Case: Ashok Kumar Mishra &amp; Anr Vs. Collector, Raipur &amp; Ors

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 4(1) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal 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 4(1) of the Rules calling upon persons whose names had not been included in the electoral rolls and who claimed to be included in it and persons who had any objection to the inclusion of the name of any person in the said electoral roll to submit their claims and/or 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 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 1 and 5 respectively in the petition before the High Court) filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and Purushottam Lal Sharma (petitioner 6 before the High Court) filed another petition. On special leave being granted, the above petitions were registered as appeals.

Court's reasoning:
7. 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 disentitles a person to relief under Article 226is 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 circumstances8. 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 ignored9. 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.