http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: NANHOO MAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIRA MAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/09/1975

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 2140            1976 SCR  (1) 809  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC 616  (8,9)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950, Articles 226 and 329-Writ Jurisdiction of  High Courts-High  Court, if could interfere in matters relating to election.      U.P.  Municipalities   Act,  Section   43-B-Notices  to members of  Municipal Board  calling for  nomination to tile office  of   President-Validity  of   procedure  adopted  by District Magistrate,  if could  be  challenged  before  High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:      To fill  up a  casual vacancy  in  the  office  of  the President of  the Municipal  Board, Soron in the district of Etah  in  Uttar  Pradesh,  the  District  Magistrate  issued notices to  the members  of the  Board informing  them  that nomination paper  should be  filed in  his office by 20th of September, 1974  and if  necessary the  election  will  take place on  1st October,  1974. The  1st respondent  thereupon filed a  petition under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution challenging the  validity of  the procedure  adopted by  the District Magistrate  for holding the election and prayed for an order to the District Magistrate not to hold the election on 1st  October, 1974.  The objection  to the  procedure for election was based on the allegation that it did not conform to  the  provisions  of  Rule  of  the  U.P.  Municipalities (Conduct of  Election of  Presidents and Election Petitions) order, 1964.  The High  Court admitted the Writ Petition and directed that  the election  would be  subject  to  ultimate decision in  the Writ  Petition. Consequently  the  election took place  on the  1st of October and the 1st appellant was declared elected.  Thereafter the  1st respondent  filed  an application  for   impleading  the  1st  appellant  and  the Municipal Board as parties and also claimed a further relief for quashing the election proceedings that took place on the 1st of  October, 1974.  The High  Court allowed the petition and set  aside the  entire election  proceedings relating to the election  of the  1st appellant  as the President of the Municipal Board.      Allowing the appeal by special Leave, ^

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    HELD: The  right to  vote or  stand for election to the office of the President of the Municipal Board is a creature of the  statute, that  is the U.P. Municipalities Act and it must be subject to the limitations  imposed by it. Therefore the election  to  the  office  of  the  President  could  be challenged only  according to  the procedure  prescribed  by that Act  and that  is by  means  of  an  election  petition presented in  accordance with  the provisions of the Act and in no  other way. The Act provides only for one remedy, that remedy being  an election petition to be presented after the election is  over and  there is  no remedy  provided at  any intermediate stage. [813-E, 814A-B, 814C-D]      N.  P,   Ponnuswami  v,   Returning  officer,  Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952] S.C.R. 218 relied on.      Desi Chettiar  v. Chinnasami  Chettiar A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1271 and  Wolverhamption New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford 6 C.B. (N.S.) 336 referred to.      (ii) These  conclusions in Punnuswami case were arrived at without  taking the  provisions of  Article  329  of  the Constitution into account. Tho provisions of Article 329 are relevant only  to the  extent that  even  the  remedy  under Article 226  is barred as a result of the provisions. But on e the  legal effect  of the  provisions of  law contained in Article 329  and in  section 43-B  of the U.P. Municpalities Act is  taken into  account there  is no  room for  the High Courts to  interfere  in  exercise  of  their  powers  under Article 226 of the Constitution. 810      Quaere: Can there be any extraordinary circumstances in which the  High courts  could  exercise  their  power  under Article 226  of the  Constitution in relation to elections ? [814-E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 732 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  19th March,  1975 of  the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5935 of 1974.      R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, V. J. Francis, T. M. Ansari for the Appellants.      M.  C.  Bhandare,  R.  Nagarathnam,  S.  Bhandare,  for Respondent No. 1.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      ALAGRISWAMI, J.  To fill  up a  casual vacancy  in  the office of the President of the Municipal Board, Soron in the district of  Etah in  Uttar Pradesh, the District Magistrate issued notices  to he  members of  the Board  informing them that nomination  papers should  be filed  in his  of lice by 26th of  September, 1974  and if necessary the election will take  place   on  1st  October,  1974.  The  1st  respondent thereupon  filed   a  petition  under  Article  226  of  the Constitution  challenging  the  validity  of  the  procedure adopted by  the District Magistrate for holding the election and prayed  for an  order to  the District Magistrate not to hold  the  election  on  1st  October,  1974.  The  election programme had  been notified in the U.P. Gazette dated 21-9- 74 but it was published in the Gazette dated 24-9-74.      The objection  to the  procedure for election was based on the  allegation that it did not conform to the provisions of Rule 6 of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and  Election Petitions) Order, 1964, which reads as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

         "6. Appointment  of date  for nomination, etc.-(1)      As soon  as may  be after  the election of members of a      board is  completed at  a general  election within  the      meaning of  section 43  of the  Act or  a equal vacancy      occurs in  the office  of President  of  a  board.  the      District  Magistrate  shall,  by  notification  in  the      official Gazette,  appoint  for  the  election  to  the      office of President of the Board.           (a)  the date  for making  nominations which shall                be a  date at  least four days after the date                of notification; and           (b)  the date  for scrutiny  of nominations  which                shall be  me date  next  following  the  date                fixed under clause (a); and           (c)  the last  date for withdrawal of candidatures                which shall  be the  third day after the date                fixed for scrutiny of nominations; and 811           (d)  the date  on which and the hours during which                a poll shall, if necessary, be taken:      Provided that the date for taking the poll  shall  be a      date   not   more than  five days  after the last  date      fixed  under clause (c) .           (2) on  the issue  of notification  under sub-para      (1), the  Returning   Officer  shall give public notice      of the   election   in  Hindi   in form I by affixing a      copy of  the notice  at  his  office and  another  copy      at the  office of the Board and in  such  other manner,      if any,  as he  may think  fit and shall also cause  to      be dispatched   by  post under certificate of posting a      copy   of  the notice to the last known address of each      member."      Though   there was  a prayer  in the  writ petition for all order  to  the  District  Magistrate  not  to  hold  the election on 1-10-74 the learned Judges who admitted the writ petition   directed that   the  election would be subject to ultimate decision   in   the writ petition. Consequently the election took  place on  the 1st  of October   and  the  1st Appellant was  declared   elected.    Thereafter  the    1st respondent filed  an application  for impleading   the   1st appellant   and the  Municipal Board  as  parties  and  also claimed   a  further    relief  for  quashing  the  election proceedings that   took  place on  the 1st of October, 1974. The learned  Judges allowed  the petition  and set aside the entire election  proceedings   relating to  the  election of the 1st Appellant as the President  of  the Municipal Board.      We   are   of the  opinion that the whole  approach  of the learned  . Judges  of the High Court to this problem was mistaken.  After  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  N.  P. Ponnuswami v.  Returning Officer,   Namakkal  Constituency & Ors.(1), there is  hardly  any room  for Courts to entertain applications under  Article   226   of the  Constitution  in matters relating  to elections.  Before   dealing with  this question we  may set  out s. 43-B of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which is the provision of law dealing with  cases where the election of the President is questioned:           "43-B. Judicial  officer to decide the question of      validity of election to the office of President.-(1) No      election   of the President shall be called in question      except  by   any     election  petition   presented  in      accordance with the provisions of this Act.           (2) An  election petition  may be presented by any      member entitled  to  vote  at  the  election  or  by  a      candidate who has  been defeated  at  the  election  on      one   or  more  of  the  following ’grounds, that is to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    say-           (a)  that the  returned candidate   has  committed                any corrupt  practice within  the meaning  of                section 28; (1) [1952] S.C.R. 218. 812           (b)  that the  nomination of,  any  candidate  has                been wrongly  rejected, or  the nomination of                the  successful     candidate  or  any  other                candidate   who   has   not   withdrawn   his                candidature has been wrongly included;           (c)  that   the result  of the election  has  been                materially affected by-                (i)  the improper  rejection or refusal  of a                     vote, or                (ii) any non-compliant  with the   provisions                     of this  Act or  of any  rules or orders                     made under this Act.            (3)   An   election petition shall  be  presented      to the District  Judge, or in a district where there is      no   headquarters of  the District  Judge, to the Civil      Judge, within  whose jurisdiction   the municipality to      which the election petition relates  is situate: Thus   the   only way  by which  the election of a President can   be called  in question  is by  means  of  an  election petition   Presented in  accordance  with  the provisions of this  Act.  The  election itself  can  be questioned only on one of  the three  grounds  mentioned above. The only ground in the  present case  on the  basis of which the election of the appellant  was questioned  is that  there was   a   non- compliance   with the  provisions of   rule    6,    already referred  to. Under the Act the non-compliance with any rule or order made under the Act or any provision of the Act does not ipso  facto result in the election being set aside. That result can   be  set   aside only  if the  election Tribunal comes to  the   conclusion that   the result of the election has been  materially affected   by  such  noncompliance. The jurisdiction to  decide the   validity  of the election of a President is  an exclusive  one conferred  on  the  District Judge. In the circumstances there was no room  for  the High Court exercising  its powers under Article 226 in  order  to set   aside the election. In keeping aside the election  the High Court   plainly   erred   because  it did not  consider whether   the result  of the  election had  been  materially affected by   non-compliance   with the rule in question. In any case that is a  matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge.      As   early   as 1928 in its decision in  Desi  Chettiar v. Chinnasami  Chettiar(1) the Madras High Court observed:           "It is  clear that  there is  another side of  the      question to be considered, namely, the inconvenience to      the public   administration of having elections and the      business of  Local   Boards held  up while  individuals      prosecute their  individual grievances.  We  understand      the election  for the elective seats in this  Union has      been  held up since 31st May because of this  petition,      the result   being   that the electors have been unable      since   then   to have any representation on the Board,      and  the  Board  is    functioning,  if  indeed  it  is      functioning, with a mere (1) A. 1. R. 1928 Mad. 1271. 813      nomination   fraction   of its  total   strength;   and      this state  of affairs  the petitioner proposes to have      continued  until   his  own   personal   grievance   is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    satisfied". These   observations   were quoted  with  approval  by  this court   in Ponnuswami’s  case (supra)  In that decision this Court arrived (supra).  In  that decision this Court arrived at  the  following conclusions:           "(1) Having  regard  to  the  important  functions      which the  legislatures  have  to perform in democratic      countries,   it   has always   been  recognised to be a      matter of  first  importance  that elections  should be      concluded as  early as  possible  according    to  time      schedule   and all  controversial matters    and    all      disputes arising  out  of elections should be postponed      till,   after   the elections  are over,  so  that  the      election proceedings  may not  be  unduly  retarded  or      protracted.           (2) In  conformity with this principle, the scheme      of the  election   law   in this  country as well as in      England is  that  no significance should be attached to      anything which  does not  affect the "election"; and if      any irregularities  are committed  while   it  is    in      progress and  they belong  to the  category or    class      which, under  the  law by which elections are governed,      would  have  the effect of vitiating the "election" and      enable the  per son affect-ed  to  call it in question,      they should  be brought up  before  a special  tribunal      by means  of an  election petition   and   not  be made      the subject  of a  dispute before  any court  while the      election is in progress." In   absence of  any express  provisions in  the Act  to the contrary these principles are applicable equally to cases of elections  to local bodies also. This Court also pointed out that the right to vote  or stand as a candidate for election is not  a   civil   right but   is  a creature of statute or special law  and must be  subject to the limitations imposed by it.  It referred  to the  decision  in Wolverhampton  New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford(1) where it  had been held:            "There  are three  classes of  cases in  which  a      liability may  be established founded upon statute. One      is, where  there   was a  liability  existing at common      law, and  that liability   is   affirmed   by a statute      which gives  a special  and peculiar   form   of remedy      different from  the remedy which existed at common law;      there,     unless  the  statute  contains  words  which      expressly   or   by necessary   implication exclude the      common law remedy,  the  party suing  has  his election      to pursue  either that  or   the  statutory remedy. The      second class  o cases is, where the statute gives  the      right to  sue merely,  but provides not particular form      of   remedy:   there, the  party can  only  proceed  by      action at   common   law.  But there  is a third class,      viz., where  a liability  not  existing at  common  law      is created by a statute which at  the  same  time gives      a special and particular remedy (1) 6 C.B. (N.S.) 336.814 814      for  enforcing   it....  The  remedy  provided  by  the      statute must  be followed,  and it  is not competent to      the party to pursue the  course  applicable to cases of      the second  class.  The  form given by the statute must      be adopted and adhered to." and  after referring to the      provisions of  the   Representation   of the People Act      pointed out  that it will be a fair inference  that the      Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being  by      an election petition to be presented after the election      is over,  and  there  is  no  remedy  provided  at  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    intermediate stage.  This Court also held that the word      ’election’ connotes  the entire  procedure to  be  gone      through to  return a  candidate whenever   we  talk  of      elections in a democratic country.      It   follows that  the  right  to  vote  or  stand  for election to  the office  of the  President of  the Municipal Board is  a   creature of  the statute,  that is,  the  U.P. Municipalities  Act   and     it  must  be  subject  to  the limitations imposed  by it.  Therefore,  the election to the office of  the President  could be challenged only according to the  procedure prescribed  by that  Act and  that is   by means  of an election petition presented in accordance  with the provisions  of the  Act and  in no  other way.  The  Act provides   only for   one   remedy,  that  remedy  being  an election   petition   to  be presented after of the election is  over   and  there  is  no    remedy  provided    at  any intermediate stage.   These   conclusions   follow from  the decision of  this Court in Ponnuswami’s case (supra)  in its application to the facts of this case. But  the  conclusions above     stated  were   arrived  at   without  taking  the. provisions   of Article   329  into  account. The provisions of  Article  329  are relevant  only to the extent that even the remedy  under  Article 226 of the Constitution is barred as a  result of  the   provisions. But once the legal effect above set  forth of  the provision  of law  which   we   are concerned with is taken into account there  is  no room  for the  High Courts to interfere in  exercise  of  their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether there  can be any extraordinary  circumstances in  which the  High  courts could exercise  their power under Article 226 in relation to elections it   is  not  now necessary to consider.  All  the considerations applied  in coming  to  the  conclusion  that elections to  the   legislatures   should not  be delayed or protracted  by  the    interference  of    Courts    at  any intermediate stage before the results  of  the election  are over apply  with equal force to elections  to  local bodies. The appeal  is therefore,  allowed and  the judgment of  the High   Court   set aside.  There will, however, be no  order as  to costs V.M.K.                                        Appeal allowed 815