JUDGMENT 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: this application relates to the last General Election held for electing the Commissioners of the Budge Budge Municipality. The Budge Budge Municipality is divided into 8 wards, consisting of 16 Municipal Commissioners. Ward No. 8 is a double-seated constituency. The last General Election of Commissioners under section 24 (3) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") was held on the 31st March, 1959 in respect of all the wards. On the date above mentioned, the election of ward No. 8 failed. It may be mentioned that 7 candidates had stood for election and were duly nominated for ward No 8. Under section 26 of the said Act. if the electorate in any municipality fails within the prescribed time to elect the requisite number of Commissioners, a date shall be fixed by the District Magistrate for another election. In exercise of this power, and in accordance with the Rule 2 (1b) of the Rules framed under the said Act, which provides that such an order fixing the fresh election should be made at least 50 days before the election is held, the District Magistrate ordered on the 27th April, 1959 that a fresh election of Ward No. 8 should be held on the 28th June, 1959. The period intervening was 61 days, and as such, was in accordance with Rule 2 (1b). The date of election was extended from time to time, and ultimately the second election was held on the 4th October, 1959 and the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 were duly elected. As the fresh election fell within the next financial year, the electoral roll had to be revised and was in fact revised. Rule 16 of the said Rules prescribes that for a fresh election under section 26, a fresh electoral roll must be prepared, if it is necessary under the Act and the Rules. The fresh election was held in accordance with the revised electoral roll. For this fresh election, the procedure adopted was that fresh nomination papers were called for, and had to be filed. Amongst others, Dr. Surendra Nath Mondal and Nishi Kanta Chakraborty who had already been elected as Commissioners for Wards Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, filed nomination papers as also Dr. Indu Bhusan Bose, who is a voter. The nomination papers of Dr. Amongst others, Dr. Surendra Nath Mondal and Nishi Kanta Chakraborty who had already been elected as Commissioners for Wards Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, filed nomination papers as also Dr. Indu Bhusan Bose, who is a voter. The nomination papers of Dr. Surendra Nath Mondal and Nishi Kanta Chakravorty were rejected on the ground that they had already been elected as Commissioners. The nomination paper of Dr. Indu Bhusan Bose was rejected on the ground of his personal interest in the affairs of the municipality. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed an election dispute in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, under section 36 of the said Act. By his order dated 13th August, 1960 the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the said election. A copy of his judgment is annexure "a" to the petition. The points to be decided in this application are practically the same as were the subject matter of the election case, and the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, and I shall refer to the same as and when necessary. This application is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The points that arise for determination in this case are as follows.- (1) Is the fresh election held under section 26 a new election or a continuation of the election already held? (2) In the facts and circumstances of this case, was it necessary to have a revised electoral roll for the fresh election? (3) For the fresh election, was it competent to ask for fresh nominations to be filed? (4) Was the date of the fresh election properly fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly Rule 2 (1b)? (5) Had the District Magistrate power to extend the date when the fresh election should be held? (6) In such a fresh election, can a person who has already been elected as Commissioner from one ward stand for election for another ward and if selected, does Rule 40 apply to his case? 2. I shall now proceed to deal with the points. As regards the first point there can be no doubt that the fresh election held under section 26 is a continuation of the earlier election. That appears clear from the provision of section 26 itself. 2. I shall now proceed to deal with the points. As regards the first point there can be no doubt that the fresh election held under section 26 is a continuation of the earlier election. That appears clear from the provision of section 26 itself. Although the words ' another election" and "second election" have been used, it is obvious that it is intended to complete the General Election as a whole. Actually, there can be only one General Election of all the wards for a particular term. For purposes of convenience it may be broken up into constituent parts, territorially by dividing the entire area into wards, and in point of time by fixing the date of election ward-wise. It cannot, however, be said that either territorially or in point of time, there is to be held more than one General Election. Where the electorate in any municipality fails, within the prescribed time, to elect the requisite numbers of Commissioners for a particular ward or wards, then a fresh election is held for such ward or wards or the whole municipality as the case may be, if the election fails as a whole. But such fresh election or elections is or are a continuation of the old one. With regard to the second point, the matter is covered by authority. In Dr. Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee v. R. N. Bose and Ors. (1) A. I. R. (1953) Cal. 520, the very point arose for determination. In that case also, before the fresh election under section 26 could be held, the time had come for a revision of the rolls under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The question arose as to whether, for the purpose of an election under section 26, it was necessary to revise the electoral roll. It was held that such a revision was necessary, and omission to revise the electoral roll makes the holding of such an election, contrary to law. The learned Judge pointed out that Rule 16 of the Rules provided in definite and unambiguous term, that before an election under section 26 or the other sections specified in Rule 16 was held, a revision of the electoral roll was necessary and must be made. 3. The next point is as to whether, for a fresh election under section 26, it is necessary to file fresh nominations. 3. The next point is as to whether, for a fresh election under section 26, it is necessary to file fresh nominations. In my opinion, this is amply covered by the provisions of Rule 41. That Rule runs as follows:- "a second election, under section 26 of the Act, shall begin at the stage from which the original election failed, e. g., if the election failed at the time of polling, a fresh poll only shall be held or if the election failed for want of candidates, fresh nominations shall be called for. " 4. In this particular case, the original election failed, but not for want of candidates. Therefore, according to the Rule, the second election had to begin at the stage from which the original election failed. In such a case, there is no room for doubt, because the Rule itself postulates the procedure in such a case. It lays down that if the election failed at the time of polling, a fresh poll only shall be held. In the face of this Rule, I do not see how fresh nomination papers can be insisted upon That direction was in gross violation of the provisions of this Rule. It was argued before me that this kind of interpretation would lead to difficulties. It is pointed out that after the fresh electoral roll has been drawn up, the person already nominated might be found without qualification, or it may be found that a number of new voters have come in, who would then not get an opportunity for standing in the fresh election. In my opinion, these equitable propositions can not be introduced into the procedure followed under a special Act, which creates a franchise and prescribes the procedure to be followed. As has been often pointed out, there is no common law right to a franchise. It is the creation of a statute, and must be governed by its provisions. If a person already nominated ceases to have the qualification necessary for being elected as Commissioner, then his election can be set aside on that ground. But in view of Rule 41, he cannot be asked to file a fresh nomination paper. With regard to new voters that have come in, it is quite correct that they have no opportunity for standing at this particular election, but such is the provision of law. But in view of Rule 41, he cannot be asked to file a fresh nomination paper. With regard to new voters that have come in, it is quite correct that they have no opportunity for standing at this particular election, but such is the provision of law. The next point is with regard to the fixation of the date of the election. It is not disputed that the first order fixing the date of election was 28th June, 1959. It is, however, said that the District Magistrate had no right to extend the time and if he did extend it, then the Rule has not been complied with, because 50 days has to be calculated from each extension. In my opinion, neither of these points is of any substance. As to the right of the District Magistrate to extend the time, I have already decided this point in my judgment in Civil Rule No. 661 of 1953 (Sambhu Charan Paul v. District Magistrate of Howrah-judgment dated 27th March, 1955. I held there that the District Magistrate in such circumstances, clearly had the right to extend the date under section 22 of the Bengal General Clauses Act I of 1898. I have followed the decision in Bhuban Mohan Basak v. Chairman, Dacca Municipality, (3) 31 C. W. N. 926 and Santosh Kumar Chatterji v. State of West Bengal, (4) I. L. R. (1955) 2 Cal. 477, where it has been held that a power to fix a date for election under the Act, must be taken to include the power to postpone any date so fixed. As this proposition seems to be well-established, and has been extensively dealt with in my decision above-mentioned, which has been relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, it is unnecessary to deal with the matter in further detail. In any event, the provision of Rule 2 (1b) has been amply followed, because the time lag between the order of the District Magistrate fixing the election and the holding of the election, is much in excess of 50 days. The time cannot be counted from each extension. That method of computation does not seem to be based on any rational basis. This also disposes of the point No. 5. 5. The time cannot be counted from each extension. That method of computation does not seem to be based on any rational basis. This also disposes of the point No. 5. 5. The next point is as to whether in such an election, a person who has already been elected from another ward may bland for election or be elected The learned Subordinate Judge has held that there is nothing in the Act or the Rules preventing it, and I agree with him. The circumstances which will then arise are governed by the provisions of Rule 40. That Rule runs as follows: "when a candidate has been elected for more than one ward- (a) he shall be declared by the Chairman to have been elected for such ward, if any, out of those wards, in which the election has been uncontested. (b) otherwise, within five days from the date of the election he shall declare which of such wards he will represent and if he fails to make such declaration, the Chairman shall forthwith declare the ward which such candidate shall represent. In either case such candidate shall be held to be elected in the ward in respect of which a valid declaration has been made under this rule and in every other ward for which the said candidate has been elected the result of the election shall be determined as if no votes had been recorded for him : provided that, if there is no other candidate for whom votes have been recorded to fill the vacancy thus caused, a fresh election shall be held. " 6. Faced with this rule, it was argued that the rule only applies to a simultaneous election and not to a fresh election under section 26. In my opinion, there is no warrant for this distinction. As I have stated above, a fresh election under section 26 is only a continuation of the first election and forms a part of it. Thus, there is no basis for treating the fresh election as a different election and excluding the operation of Rule 40. For the above reasons, I think that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was correct and that the election was properly set aside. The application therefore fails. The Rule is discharged. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.