JUDGEMENT
S.S.CHADHA,J. -
(1.)This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an important question of the inter- pretation of Section 15(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules 79(a), 81 and 82 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The decision turns on the question whether a candidate who has withdrawn his candidature under Rule 19 is included within the words "candidates at the election".
(2.)A general election of the councillors for the purposes of constituting the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short called the Corporation) under Section 3 of the Act was held on February 5, 1983. The last date for making the nominations was January 10, 1983. Besides the petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 herein, S/Shri Om Parkash, Hem Raj, Mohd. Aftab, Banarsi Lal, Som Nath and Raghunandan also filed their nomination papers from Ward No. 75 (Suiwalan) of the Corporation for the election of the councillor. The date for scrutiny of nominations was January 12, 1983. The last date for withdrawal of candidatures was January 15, 1983. The aforenamed six persons withdrew their candidatures on or before the date of withdrawal. The Returning Officer prepared in Form 7 a list of contesting candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 and published the same. The polling took place on February 5, 1983. Respondent No. 8 who was the Returning Officer, after the counting of the votes, declared respondent No. 1 to be the elected candidate defeating the petitioner by a margin of 35 votes.
(3.)The petitioner filed a petition under Section 15 of the Act praying to the Election Tribunal that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared to be void on various grounds. The petitioner impleaded all the contesting candidates who were made respondents 1 to 7 besides the Returning Officer and the Director of Municipal Elections but did not implead the candidates who withdrew their candidatures on or before the date of withdrawal. The election petition was assigned to the Court of ShriS. N. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the election petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not joined all the candidates at the election. The learned Additional District Judge framed a preliminary issue and after hearing dismissed the election petition by the impugned order dated May 21, 1983 on the ground that there was non-compliance of Section 15(3) of the Act as the petitioner had failed to join as respondents six persons who were duly nominated candidates even though they had withdrawn their candidatures.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.