1953 (12) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of 172 names from the Final Electoral Roll.
2. Adequacy of notice and hearing for affected individuals.
3. Legality of the District Magistrate's order and its communication.
4. Proper parties to the application.
5. Petitioner's delay in challenging the Electoral Roll.
6. Impact on elections and other wards.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of 172 Names from the Final Electoral Roll:
The petitioner sought writs to exclude 172 names from the Final Electoral Roll of Jiaganj Azimganj Municipality, as per the District Magistrate's order dated 18-10-1952. The District Magistrate had directed the exclusion of these names, claiming they were not members of a joint family under Section 23(5)(i) of the Bengal Municipal Act and that municipal rates had not been paid for certain holdings.

2. Adequacy of Notice and Hearing for Affected Individuals:
The District Magistrate issued notices to 171 individuals to show cause why their names should not be excluded, fixing the hearing for 18-10-1952. However, the notices were inadequately served, reaching some individuals after the hearing date. Only 23 individuals appeared, and 15 submitted representations. The court noted that 135 individuals had no proper notice, thus not getting a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

3. Legality of the District Magistrate's Order and Its Communication:
The District Magistrate's order in MA. 11 of 1952 was communicated by registered post and received by the Chairman on 24-10-1952, after the Final Electoral Roll had already been published on 22-10-1952. The Chairman argued that there was no provision in the Act or rules for publishing a second amended Final Electoral Roll after the statutory period had lapsed.

4. Proper Parties to the Application:
The application sought a writ of Mandamus commanding the Chairman to exclude 172 names from the Final Electoral Roll. However, the court noted that the Electoral Roll must be prepared and published by a committee (registering authority) consisting of the Chairman and two commissioners. Since the application did not include the other commissioners, it suffered from a defect of parties.

5. Petitioner's Delay in Challenging the Electoral Roll:
The petitioner did not challenge the Final Electoral Roll, published on 6-9-1952, until 27-2-1953. The court observed that the petitioner had not taken timely steps to appeal or otherwise challenge the Electoral Roll.

6. Impact on Elections and Other Wards:
The court considered the potential impact on elections, noting that some affected individuals were voters in other wards where commissioners had already been elected uncontested. The court acknowledged the argument that an order affecting the Electoral Roll could impact elections in other wards, even if the petitioner was not interested in those results.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the application could not succeed due to the defect of parties and the lack of proper notice and hearing for the affected individuals. The rule was discharged, and the interim order was vacated, except for the stay on publishing election results until 10-1-1954, to allow the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Appeal Court. No order as to costs was made.