Mehrotra, C.J.- Tongla Town Committee has been constituted into a Town Committee under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 - Assam Act XV of 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The term of the ad hoc committee was according to the Government notification coming to an end on the 1st May, 1963. Fresh elections were to be held in the year 1963, for the Tongla Town Committee. On the 1st March, 1963, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangaldoi fixed 5th May, 1963 as the date for holding the general election of the Commissioners of the Town Committee. On the same day a detailed programme for filing of objections to the electoral rolls, the scrutiny of the nomination papers and the election was published. On the 3rd April, 1963, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice fixing ioth April, 1963, at 3 P. M. for filing the nomination papers and i3th April, 1963, was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers. (2) The petitioner before us is a citizen who is qualified to stand as a candidate for election as Commissioner to the Tongla Town Committee. On 10th April, 1963, he filed his nomination paper before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was duly proposed and accepted. The Sub-Divisional officer, however, postponed the date of the scrutiny till further orders. The Sub-Divisional Officer again by a notification published in the Assam Gazette notified that the date of the general elections of the Tongla Town Committee should be treated as cancelled. Again on the 13th May, 1963, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangaldoi withdrew the preliminary roll of the Town Committee dated 4th March, 1963. On the 29th May, 1963, a new programme for the general elections for the Town Committee was published tinder the signature of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Under this new programme published by the Sub-Divisional Officer, fresh dates were fixed for the publication of the electoral roll under Rule 7(iii) of the rules framed under the Assam Municipal Act and thereafter time was fixed for filing objections to the preliminary roll and the inquiry to be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 5th July, 1963, was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers and 7th August, 1963, was fixed for the poll. On the 5th July, 1963, the petitioner's nomination paper was not considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (3) It is not disputed that the Tongla Town Committee had got four Wards. 5th July, 1963, was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers and 7th August, 1963, was fixed for the poll. On the 5th July, 1963, the petitioner's nomination paper was not considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (3) It is not disputed that the Tongla Town Committee had got four Wards. Fresh nominations were invited by the subsequent programme and some people filed fresh nominations. The Sub-Divisional Officer on the 5th July, 1963, only considered those nomination papers which were filed within the date fixed under the new programme and did not take into consideration the nominations which were filed earlier and which were not renewed under the new programme. On considering the fresh nominations filed, the returning officer held that some of the nominations were valid and in two of the Wards he declared the persons who had filed their nominations as elected in view of the fact that there were no other nomination papers. In wards Nos. II and IV as there were contesting candidates the election had to take place on 7th August, 1963. Thereafter the petitioner who was also a candidate in Ward No. IV, applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which gives rise to the present rule. (4) The contention of the petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no right to cancel the entire programme of election and publish a new programme and further to fix a new date for the filing of fresh nominations and for the scrutiny of the nomination papers. As the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer fixing the new programme was illegal, the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, is void and ultra vires. This Court should set aside the results of the scrutiny held by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 5th July, 1963. The petitioner contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not right in ignoring the nomination papers filed by the candidates at the earlier stage and only considering the nomination papers which were filed afresh. The petitioner has asked for a declaration that the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, is void and ineffective and further for a mandamus or any other writ or order which this Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner has asked for a declaration that the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, is void and ineffective and further for a mandamus or any other writ or order which this Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (5) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as those candidates who have been declared elected in the two Wards where there was no contest. The Sub-Divisional Officer has said that after the receipt of the nominations on the 10th April, 1963 and before the scrutiny it was brought to the notice of the returning officer that the final electoral roll published was not in accordance with the preliminary roll which was not properly authenticated and certain bogus names were introduced in the final electoral roll. That necessitated the examination of the whole matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer made inquiries and found that there was truth in the allegation that some bogus names were introduced in the final electoral roll. In such a situation the Sub-Divisional Officer thought that the final electoral roll will have to be published afresh. Not only that, the Sub-Divisional Officer also thought that the preliminary electoral roll also will have to be republished and objections invited. In the letter which the Sub-divisional officer wrote to the Government he has clearly suggested that as bogus names have been introduced in the final roll published, the preliminary roll itself has to be republished and the objections had to be invited. In the counter-affidavit filed by the returning officer, he has asserted that there were a number of bogus names introduced in the list which was finally published and thus an inquiry by him was necessitated. On inquiry he found that some bogus names were introduced in the final roll and thus he had to take steps against the person who was responsible for bringing the bogus names on the final roll. He had thus to postpone the date of the scrutiny. (6) Two preliminary points have been raised by the counsel for the State as well as Dr. Medhi who appears for the candidates who have been declared elected. Dr. He had thus to postpone the date of the scrutiny. (6) Two preliminary points have been raised by the counsel for the State as well as Dr. Medhi who appears for the candidates who have been declared elected. Dr. Medhi contends that firstly, the petitioner has no locus standi so far as the Wards in which the election have been declared and in which he was not himself a candidate, to ask for setting aside of the election and for a declaration that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer should be quashed. The petitioner undoubtedly was one of the candidates in Ward No. IV. He had filed his nomination paper. What he is attacking is the scrutiny held on 5th July, 1963. As in the scrutiny which was held on 5th July, 1963, his nomination paper was not considered, he is a person who has got a locus standi to approach this Court and ask for a declaration that the scrutiny which took place on the 5th July, 1963, is void and ultra vires. It cannot be said that merely because he was a candidate in one ward, he has got no locus standi to approach this Court under Article 226 of £he Constitution to ask for the vacation of the scrutiny which was held on the 5th July, 1963, in respect of other wards also. He has in so many terms asked for a declaration that the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, was void and he as a candidate in Ward No. IV was also interested in asking this Court to set aside the scrutiny, if it is found to be without the authority of law and without any jurisdiction. (7) The next objection taken by Dr. Medhi is that in so far as the declaration has been made in respects of the two Wards, the only remedy of the petitioner is to file an election petition. He cannot come under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 16 of the Act is relied upon in that connection. Section 16 provides: "16. Medhi is that in so far as the declaration has been made in respects of the two Wards, the only remedy of the petitioner is to file an election petition. He cannot come under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 16 of the Act is relied upon in that connection. Section 16 provides: "16. If the validity of an election of a Commissioner is brought in question by an unsuccessful candidate or person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers, such person may, at any time within twenty-one days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, file a petition in the prescribed manner before the District Judge of the district within which the election has been or should have been held and in the case of the Shillong Municipality to the District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, and shall at the same time deposit one hundred rupees in Court as security for the costs likely to be incurred: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, may be authorised by the State Government to receive election petitions on behalf of the District Judge for transmission to him: Provided further that the validity of such election shall not be questioned in any such petition - (a) on the ground that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from the electoral roll; or (b) on the ground that the name of any person not qualified to vote has been inserted in the electoral roll; or (c) on the ground of acceptance or refusal of nomination of candidates provided further that an appeal in the manner prescribed shall lie to the District Judge against such acceptance or refusal of nomination.'' Section 18 of the Act also provides the grounds on which a Judge holding an inquiry can hold the election to be invalid. It is not a case where the nomination paper has been rejected where the petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 16(c). If the nomination paper after the scrutiny and' examination is either wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted, the person who is effected by such an order has got a right of appeal under Section 16(c). It is not a case where the nomination paper has been rejected where the petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 16(c). If the nomination paper after the scrutiny and' examination is either wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted, the person who is effected by such an order has got a right of appeal under Section 16(c). In the present case the petitioner's nomination paper was never considered and thus the question of his right of appeal against the order rejecting or accepting the nomination does not arise. (8) The next contention, however, is that the remedy was by means of an election petition and under Section 18 the petitioner was entitled to challenge the validity of the election on the ground that there has been an irregularity committed by the returning officer which has materially affected the results of the election. The contention of the petitioner is that the returning officer had no jurisdiction to invite objections to the preliminary roll and recast the whole program me so as to reopen the whole matter. It is not a case where the petitioner is challenging the election on the ground of any irregularity or non-compliance with any provision of the rule. The entire procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been challenged by means of this petition and it is not a case which will be covered by Section 18(c) of the Act. In these circumstances the petitioner's remedy is not by means of an election petition, Moreover, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has challenged the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, and if his contention is accepted that the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963, was illegal, the relief which the petitioner is entitled to get is a mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the fresh programme which was published by the Sub-Divisional Officer. If such a mandamus is granted, obviously the result is that the entire proceedings held on the 5th July, 1963, are vitiated and it is not a case where the petitioner is challenging the election on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 18 of the Act. (9) Mr. Pathak who appears for the State has strenuously contended that the scrutiny had to beheld within two days of the filing of the nomination and thus the scrutiny was to be held on the 13th April, 1963. (9) Mr. Pathak who appears for the State has strenuously contended that the scrutiny had to beheld within two days of the filing of the nomination and thus the scrutiny was to be held on the 13th April, 1963. If it was not held for any reason, the remedy of the petitioner was to approach this Court within a reasonable time from the 13th April, and not wait till the scrutiny was held under a new programme for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This argument is in effect an argument that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on account of laches and delay in approaching this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the revised programme which was published by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 29th May, 1963, was not validly prepared and thus as a consequence of that the scrutiny which was held on the 5th July, 1963, was invalid and void. He filed this petition in July, 1963, which was even well within three months of the 5th May, 1963, when the fresh programme was published. Particularly in the circumstances of the case he might have thought that though the fresh programme has been prepared yet what the Sub-Divisional Officer intended to do was only to postpone the date of the scrutiny and in those circumstances he may have legitimately waited till he actually found that his nomination paper which has been filed earlier is not considered on the 5th July, 1963. If the notification issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 2gth May, 1963, only constitutes the postponement of the date of the scrutiny, in that event the nomination paper which has already been filed cannot be ignored. The effect of the notification will only be that fresh nominations may be received and had to be considered on the adjourned date along with the old nominations which have been filed. The effect of postponing the date of the scrutiny cannot be to scratch previous proceedings and start afresh inviting objections to the preliminary rolls and thereafter scrutinising the nominations which have been filed afresh only. (10) Dr. The effect of postponing the date of the scrutiny cannot be to scratch previous proceedings and start afresh inviting objections to the preliminary rolls and thereafter scrutinising the nominations which have been filed afresh only. (10) Dr. Medhi has also urged that though in the revised programme which was published on the 29th May, 1963, the Sub-Divisional Officer has given a date for publication of the electoral rolls under Rule 7 (iii) and also for the last date of receiving claims and objections, the date of enquiry into claims and objections, printing of final electoral rolls, and publication of final electoral rolls, yet the only purpose of this notification was to postpone the last date of receiving nomination papers and of the scrutiny of the same and if under Rule 22 of the rules framed under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') he had to fix the fifth day after the publication of the final electoral rolls as the date for making nomination, it cannot be said that the fixation of the date for receiving nomination papers was without jurisdiction. Also under Rule 26 of the Rules the fixation of the date for scrutiny of the nomination paper under the revised programme by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not without jurisdiction. Dr. Medhi's contention is that in these circumstances it cannot be said that the notification of 29th May, 1963, in so far as it fixed the dates of receiving nomination papers and of the scrutiny of the nomination papers was without jurisdiction. He further pointed out in this connection that though fresh date was fixed for filing objections but as no objection is filed, in effect the preliminary roll was not altered by any subsequent order of the returning officer. From the counter-affidavit it will appear that fresh objections were invited and they were considered and final orders were passed on the 15th June, 1963. Under those circumstances it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer only intended by the notification to postpone the final date of receiving the nomination papers and the date of the scrutiny of the nomination papers and not to revise the preliminary rolls. (11) The contention of Mr. Goswami is that there is nothing in the Act or the rules which authorises the Sub-Divisional Officer to revise the entire programme and to revise again the preliminary electoral roll. (11) The contention of Mr. Goswami is that there is nothing in the Act or the rules which authorises the Sub-Divisional Officer to revise the entire programme and to revise again the preliminary electoral roll. By the fresh notification the returning officer could if at all postpone the date of the scrutiny and for receipt of fresh nomination papers and not lay down a fresh procedure for the inquiry into the claims and objections. In effect he gave fresh opportunity to people to file objections to the preliminary electoral roll. The entire order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was misconceived in these circumstances. If the Sub-Divisional Officer had intended to postpone the date of the scrutiny and receipt of the fresh nomination papers, there was no reason for him to shut out the nomination papers already filed and he could have considered the fresh nominations along with the nominations already filed on the date of the scrutiny. The action of the returning officer clearly shows that fee not only exercised his power to postpone the date of the scrutiny but he thought that in the circumstances he was entitled in law to scratch the entire proceedings so far held and to start afresh the elections. The process of election comprises of the entire stage from the preparation of the rolls in the present case up to the actual declaration of the result of the polls and what the returning officer thought in the circumstances is that as he had discovered certain irregularities in the publication of the final rolls, he was entitled in law to set aside the previous proceedings taken by him and start afresh the election, which, in our opinion, he was not entitled to do. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules which authorises the returning officer to do so. In the Act itself and in the rules there are circumstances laid down which authorises the returning officer and the polling officer to adjourn the poll. In certain cases the returning officer if he finds that the publication of the electoral rolls is not in accordance with the authenticated preliminary roll, in that case he may correct the electoral roll. But there is no power in the Sub-Divisional Officer to quash the entire previous proceedings and start afresh. (12) Mr. In certain cases the returning officer if he finds that the publication of the electoral rolls is not in accordance with the authenticated preliminary roll, in that case he may correct the electoral roll. But there is no power in the Sub-Divisional Officer to quash the entire previous proceedings and start afresh. (12) Mr. Pathak has then relied upon Section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act (Assam Act II of 1915) which provides as follows:- "Where, by any Act, a power to make or issue notifications, orders, schemes, rules, forms, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the Hire manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, schemes, rules, forms or bye-laws so made." It should be pointed out that Section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act only embodies the rule of construction and the rule of construction is subject to the express or implied terms of a particular Act. Having regard to the entire scheme of the Act and the express provision made in the Act where the power to postponement is given and having regard to the fact that power is given to call for the objections to the draft electoral roll, scrutinise it and decide the objections, it is clear that there is an implied prohibition to cancel the earlier proceedings. Reference in this connection may be made only to the case of State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly reported in AIR 1958 SC 1018 . That case relates to the Industrial Disputes Act and the question which came up for decision was whether a notification which the Government makes under Section 10 can be withdrawn by the Government subsequently. In that case reliance was placed on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and the Supreme Court held that Section 21 embodies the principle of construction and it will always be subject to the scheme of the Act the provisions of which are sought to be interpreted. In the present case having regard to the rules and to the provisions of the Act, it is clear that S. 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act is of no assis­tance to the opposite parties. In the present case having regard to the rules and to the provisions of the Act, it is clear that S. 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act is of no assis­tance to the opposite parties. In our opinion the notification issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 2gth May 1963 was illegal and as a consequence the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963 must be declared to be void. A direction is issued to the opposite parties" not to give effect to the notification of the 29th May 1963 and also the scrutiny held on the 5th July, 1963. The Sub-Divisional Officer will fix a date for the receipt of fresh nominations, if any, to be filed and thereafter a date will be fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on which he will consider the fresh nominations along with the nominations so far filed including the nomination of the petitioner as well as the opposite parties who filed nominations in accordance with the subsequent notification of the 2gth May 1963. (13) It should also be pointed out that according to Rule 17 what is to be published is the authenticated preliminary roll and if in the publication there is any mistake and the published electoral roll does not correspond to the authenticated preliminary roll, the Sub-Divisional Officer will give effect to the authenticated preliminary roll which will be considered to be the final roll. Rule 17 provides that the rolls thus authenticated shall be called the final electoral rolls which after being printed with necessary re-numbering serially, shall be published by the Magistrate. The final roll thus is the roll which is authenticated and not what is published. The Sub-Divisional Officer thus will give effect to the authenticated preliminary roll. (14) Mr. Pothak further contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not only jurisdiction to postpone the date of the scrutiny but he has also the right to publish a fresh programme and invite fresh objections to the electoral roll inasmuch as the preliminary electoral roll which was prepared after disposing of the earlier objections was not properly authenticated. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. The only thing which is pointed out in the counter-affidavit |s that it was found on representation that some bogus names were introduced in the final electoral roll. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. The only thing which is pointed out in the counter-affidavit |s that it was found on representation that some bogus names were introduced in the final electoral roll. That the Sub-Divisional Officer revised the whole thing and set aside the first preliminary roll on the ground that it was not authenticated are not disclosed in the counter-affidavit at all. Besides this even if the roll was not properly authenticated and signed by the Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Officer could always rectify it merely by directing the Magistrate to make the inquiry and to authen­ticate it and sign it. But that does not give any right to the Sub-Divisional Officer to quash the entire previous proceedings and start afresh. (15) This petition is allowed and the scrutiny held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangaldai on the 5th July, 1963 is quashed. The fresh elections of the Tongla Town Committee scheduled to beheld on the 7th August, 1963 will not take place. Fresh date will have to be fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangaldai for holding the elections after complying with the direction given above. AH/N/D.V.C. Petition allowed. ------------------------