9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of electoral rolls. 2. Requirement to prepare fresh electoral rolls. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and rules. 4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the court under Article 226. 5. Impact of not joining necessary parties in the petition. Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of Electoral Rolls The primary issue was whether the elections to certain Janapada Sabhas were valid, given that they were conducted on the basis of electoral rolls deemed obsolete or improperly prepared. The court held that the electoral rolls must be prepared or revised in accordance with the statutory provisions and rules. The preparation of fresh electoral rolls was necessary when the constituencies were regrouped or altered. 2. Requirement to Prepare Fresh Electoral Rolls The court emphasized that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is mandated by Section 7(1) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, and the rules framed under Section 182, to prepare fresh electoral rolls six months before the term of the Sabha is due to expire. The court rejected the argument that the CEO could rely on rolls prepared earlier if they were not updated within the statutory timeframe. The court clarified that the power to direct otherwise under Rule 1(1) only pertains to the timing of preparation and not to the complete omission of preparing fresh rolls. 3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Rules The court interpreted the statutory provisions and rules to mean that the preparation of a fresh electoral roll is obligatory for every general election. The rules distinguish between the preparation of an electoral roll and its subsequent revision. The court held that the revision of an electoral roll under Rule 7 is intended for by-elections and does not replace the requirement to prepare fresh rolls for general elections. 4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the Court Under Article 226 The court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that the existence of an alternative remedy, such as an election petition, does not bar the court from exercising its powers. The court noted that the issues raised were of fundamental importance and affected a large number of election disputes, justifying the need for an authoritative decision. 5. Impact of Not Joining Necessary Parties in the Petition In some petitions, the court dismissed the cases due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, such as the elected candidates. The court held that any order affecting the rights of elected candidates could not be passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard. Separate Judgments Miscellaneous Petition No. 346 of 1953 The court allowed the petition, set aside the election of the respondent, and directed the preparation and publication of fresh electoral rolls for the Godhi constituency. Miscellaneous Petition No. 116 of 1954 The court dismissed the petition due to the non-joinder of the elected candidates as parties, despite acknowledging the invalidity of the elections based on obsolete rolls. Miscellaneous Petition No. 148 of 1954 Similar to Petition No. 116, this petition was dismissed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties. Miscellaneous Petition No. 20 of 1954 The court declared the election of the respondent from the Gondalwada constituency void and directed fresh elections after the preparation of proper electoral rolls. Miscellaneous Petition No. 350 of 1953 The court set aside the elections of specific respondents due to unauthorized revisions of the electoral rolls and directed fresh elections for the affected constituencies. Conclusion The court's judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to statutory requirements for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls to ensure the validity of elections. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to address fundamental issues affecting electoral processes, while also emphasizing procedural fairness by requiring the joinder of necessary parties in election-related petitions.
|
