9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice period under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954. 2. Mandatory nature of Rule 4. 3. Computation of the seven-day notice period under Rule 4. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice Period under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954: The petitioner challenged the validity of the election proceedings on the grounds that the notice under Rule 4 was not announced at least seven days before the date of the election. The notice was published on October 14, 1955, and the election was held on October 21, 1955. The petitioner argued that this did not satisfy the seven-day requirement stipulated by Rule 4. The Court examined the records and confirmed that the notice was indeed published on October 14, 1955, thus necessitating an evaluation of whether this constituted a contravention of Rule 4. 2. Mandatory Nature of Rule 4: The Court referred to a previous decision in Prabhudayal v. Chief Panchayat Officer, Jaipur, which held that Rule 4 is a mandatory provision. The Court reiterated that Rule 4 must be strictly followed before an election in a panchayat circle takes place. The rationale is that electors need to be adequately informed about the wards, the number of panchas to be elected, and other election details at least seven days before the election to make informed decisions. The Court agreed with this precedent, affirming that Rule 4 is mandatory and must be strictly observed. 3. Computation of the Seven-Day Notice Period under Rule 4: The Court deliberated on the proper method of computing the seven-day notice period. It was argued whether the date of publication (October 14) and the date of the election (October 21) should be included or excluded in the computation. The Court examined various precedents and legal principles, concluding that both the date of publication and the date of the election should be excluded. This interpretation aligns with the general rule of law that fractions of a day are not reckoned, and the statutory language "at least seven days before the date of election" implies a clear seven-day interval between the announcement and the election. Consequently, the interval in this case was only six days, constituting a contravention of Rule 4. Conclusion: The Court held that the disregard of the mandatory provision of Rule 4 rendered the election proceedings illegal. Consequently, the election of the Panchas and Sarpanch held on October 21, 1955, was quashed. The Court directed the Chief Panchayat Officer to hold fresh elections in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
|
