Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1956 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1956 (11) TMI 36 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election notice under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954.
2. Computation of the mandatory seven-day notice period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Election Notice under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the election notice, arguing that it was not announced seven days before the election date, as mandated by Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954. The notice was published on October 14, 1955, and the election was held on October 21, 1955. The petitioner contended that this did not meet the seven-day requirement, thus rendering the election proceedings invalid. The court examined the record and confirmed that the notice was indeed published on October 14, 1955, supporting the petitioner's claim.

2. Computation of the Mandatory Seven-Day Notice Period:
The court then focused on whether the seven-day notice period was correctly computed. Rule 4 specifies that the notice must be announced "at least seven days before the date of election." The court cited several precedents, including Prabhudayal v. Chief Panchayat Officer, Jaipur, and other cases from various jurisdictions, to determine the correct method of computing the notice period.

The court concluded that both the date of the announcement and the date of the election must be excluded in computing the seven-day period. This interpretation was supported by legal precedents which state that when an act is required to be done so many days before a given event, both the day of the act and the day of the event should be excluded. Applying this principle, the court found that the interval between October 14 and October 21 was only six days, not seven as required by Rule 4.

The court held that the provision of Rule 4 is mandatory and must be strictly followed. The failure to provide a seven-day notice period constituted a contravention of Rule 4, rendering the election proceedings illegal.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the election of the Panchas and Sarpanch held on October 21, 1955, for the Village Panchayat, Choru, due to the violation of the mandatory seven-day notice period under Rule 4. A direction was issued to the Chief Panchayat Officer to hold fresh elections in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates