LILAPORE GRAM PANCHAYAT v. ZINABHAI KALIDAS — 1968 DIGILAW 116 (GUJ)

A. S. SARELA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is the Gram Panchayat of Lilapore Vejalpore Juth and is a formal party. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 are the 10 out of the 11 elected members elected to the said Panchayat in March 1965. Respondent No. 2 is the remaining elected member. Against these 11 elected members the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed an application under sec. 24 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Civil Judge Junior Division Bulsar challenging the validity of their election. Under sec. 24 (1) the said application is to be filed at any time within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the said elected candidates that the said application which was filed on 5-4-1965 was beyond the period of time provided for in the said sec. 24 (1 ). That contention has been rejected by the learned Judge who held the application to be within time. Against that decision the 10 of the said elected members namely petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 have come to this Court by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The 11th elected member has been joined as respondent No. 9. ( 2 ) THE short point in this petition is whether the application filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 before the Civil Judge Junior Division Bulsar was made within the period provided for in sec. 24 (1) of the Act. To appreciate the submissions made on that point it would be appropriate to mention a few facts. The election programme for the Lilapore Vejalpore Juth Gram Panchayat was fixed by the Taluka Development Officer under sec. 18 of the Act. According to that programme the date for filing of nominations was 11-3-1965 for scrutiny of nominations 12-3-1965 for withdrawal 15-3-1965 for poll 29-3-1965 and for counting of votes 30-3-1965. The total number of seats in the said Gram Panchayat in respect of which this election was to be held was 11. The number of valid nominations filed did not exceed the number of seats and therefore under rule 14 of the Gram and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayats Rules) it became unnecessary to have a poll. The number of valid nominations filed did not exceed the number of seats and therefore under rule 14 of the Gram and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayats Rules) it became unnecessary to have a poll. The candidates who had filed those 11 valid nominations were the present petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 and respondent No. 9 and it is these candidates who have been declared to be elected. The short question is when and on what date can they be said to have been declared to be elected because it is within 15 days after that date that an application under sec. 24 (1) of the Act challenging the validity of the election has to be filed. ( 3 ) THERE is some controversy as to what happened after it was found that there were only 11 valid nominations and that a poll was not necessary. Rule 14 of the Gram Panchayats Rules requires the Returning Officer to declare the candidates so nominated to be duly elected without any votes being taken and rule 25 provides that the Returning Officer shall cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted at the village chavdi or at the Panchayat Office or at such other public place if any appointed in that behalf by him. It is the contention of the petitioners that is the elected candidates that the Returning Officer carried out these obligations that is to say he declared under rule 14 the candidates validly nominated to be duly elected and he also caused the names of those candidates to be posted under rule 35 at the Panchayat Office and at the village chavdi and the petitioners have produced a copy of an order allegedly made by the Returning Officer in that behalf at Annexture `a. According to them this was done on 18-3-1965. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this action on the part of the Returning Officer amounted to the declaration of the results of the election as envisaged in sec. 24 (1) of the Act and therefore the period of 15 days is to be counted from that date i. e 18 The respondents Nos. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this action on the part of the Returning Officer amounted to the declaration of the results of the election as envisaged in sec. 24 (1) of the Act and therefore the period of 15 days is to be counted from that date i. e 18 The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 who made the application in the lower Court for challenging the validity of the election denied that the Returning Officer carried out these obligations and in the alternative submitted that even if he did carry out these obligations what he did did not amount to the declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec. 24 (1 ). How under rule 35 the Returning Officer is also required to report the names of the enacted candidates immediately to the Taluka Development Officer and rules 36 which is relatable to sec. 18 (3) of the Act provides that the Taluka Development Officer shall then publish the names of the elected candidates by causing a his thereof to be posted at his office the village chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat and according to the contesting respondent it is his publication by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36 which in the present case took place admittedly on 22-3-1965 which amounted to a declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec. (1 ). The application which was as earlier stated filed on 5-4-1965 was within the period of 15 days from that date. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge below did not go into the question of fact whether the Returning Officer did or did not carry out the obligations imposed on him under rules 14 and 25 because he took the view that it is the publication of the names of the elected candidates under rule 36 which amounted to the declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec. 24 (1 ). Accordingly he rejected the preliminary objection and it is against that rejection that this petition has been filed. ( 5 ) SEC. 24 (1 ). Accordingly he rejected the preliminary objection and it is against that rejection that this petition has been filed. ( 5 ) SEC. 24 (1) of the Act which calls for construction reads as under :- If the validity of any election of a member of a Panchayat is brought in question by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers such person may at any time within fifteen days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election apply to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and if there be no Civil Judge (Junior Division) then to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) (hereinafter referred to as the Judge) having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of such question. THEREFORE the application bringing into question the validity of an election of a member of a Panchayat has to be made within 15 day after the date of the declaration of the results of the election. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 which indicates the nature of the order that Judge may pass after inquiry provides that he may pass an order confirming or amending the declared result or setting the election aside. Therefore these two sub-sections contemplate a declaration of the results of the election and it is from the date of such declaration of results that the period of 15 days is to be counted. Now neither sec. 24 nor any other section of the Act says who is to declare the results or when it can be said that the declaration of the results of the election has taken place. A reference in this connection to the analogous provisions in the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 will not be out of place. Sec. 53 of that Act deals with the procedure in contested and uncontested election. Sub-sec. (1) of that section provides that if the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled a poll shall be taken and sub-sec. (2) provides that if the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. (2) provides that if the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. Sec. 66 which concerns the declaration of results after poll provides that when the counting of the votes has been completed the Returning Officer shall in the absence of any direction by the Election Commission to the contrary forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner provided by this Act or the rules made thereunder. Sec. 57a makes it clear what is the date of election of a candidate. It provides that for the purposes of that Act the date on which a candidate is declared by the Returning Officer under the provisions of sec. 53 or sec. 66 to be elected shall be the date of election of that candidate. Sec. 81 relates to the presentation of a petition challenging the validity of the election and it provides that such a petition may be presented within 45 days from but not earlier then the date of the election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different the later of these two dates. Therefore under the said sec. 81 the date of election of the returned candidate is the material date and sec. 57a specifies that date. Sec. 81 makes it clear that if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different the later of these two dates has to be considered. Now unfortunately in respect of elections to the Panchayat there is no such clear indication either in the Gujarat Panchayats Act or the relevant rules to which reference will be made presently and therefore the expression declaration of the results of the election used in sec. 24 (1) will have to be construed in the light of the object of the provision and in the light of the procedure laid down by the Act and the rules for the conduct of the election. ( 6 ) CHAPTER III of the Act in which sec. 24 occurs makes provision with reference to election appointment or co-option of members of Panchayats election disputes etc. ( 6 ) CHAPTER III of the Act in which sec. 24 occurs makes provision with reference to election appointment or co-option of members of Panchayats election disputes etc. Sec. 20 requires each Gram to be divided into wards for the purposes of the election of members to the Gram Panchayat. The competent authority is to determine the number of members to be elected from each ward. Each ward is an electoral division under that section and the election is wardwise. Sec. 21 relates to the preparation of the electoral roll or the list of voters. That also is electoral division wise or in other words wardwise. Sec. 22 deals with the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate. The right to vote can be exercised only in the electoral division to which the list in which the voters name appears pertains but the right to stand as a candidate is wider as a voter in any electoral division is qualified to be selected from any electoral division. Sec. 18 concerns fixing of the programme of the election and the manner in which the election to be conducted. Sub-sec. (1) refers to the the authority competent to appoint the date for the election of the members of a Panchayat. Sub-sec. (2) requires that such election shall be conducted in the prescribed manner and sub-sec. (3) before it was amended by Gujarat Act I of 1968 read as under :-THE names of the elected members shall be published in the prescribed manner in the case of a Taluka Panchayat by the District Development Officer and in the case of a Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat by the Taluka Development Officer. NO other provisions of the Act have been brought to my notice as relevant. It will be noticed that none of these provisions and sec. 18 in particular in terms speaks of the declaration of the results of the election. Sub sec. (2) of sec. 12 requires the election to be conducted in the prescribed manner and sub-sec. (3) requires the publication of the names of the elected members. It is not disputed by Mr. Daru who appears for the petitioners that the publication under sec. Sub sec. (2) of sec. 12 requires the election to be conducted in the prescribed manner and sub-sec. (3) requires the publication of the names of the elected members. It is not disputed by Mr. Daru who appears for the petitioners that the publication under sec. 18 (3) which in this case took place on 22-3-1965 would amount to a declaration of the results of the election but his contention is that under the rules which are framed with reference to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 18 there is an earlier publication by the Returning Officer which would amount to a declaration. ( 7 ) IT will now be convenient to refer to the rules. There are three different sets of rules for the three different Panchayats namely the Gram and Nagar Panchayats the Taluka Panchayats and the District Panchayats. We are concerned here with the Gram Panchayat and we may first have a look at these rules. In respect of the Gram Panchayats the rules are the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Rules. Rule 6 provides for the appointment of a Returning Officer for every electoral division. Rules 8 to 11 relate to nomination and scrutiny. Rule 13 concerns the preparation of the list of validly nominated candidates and the notice of election. The Returning Officer has to prepare such a list under his signature and post it or cause it to be posted at the village chavdi and Panchayat Office. Rule 14 which is relevant provides so far as material that in any electoral division when the number of candidates duly nominated is equal to the numbers of seats to be filled the Returning Officer shall declare the candidates so nominated to be duly elected without any votes being taken. This rule was attracted in this case. Rules 21 to 28 relate to the recording of votes where voting has taken place and rules 31 to 33 to the counting of votes. Rules 34 to 36 are relevant. Just as under rule 14 the Returning Officer is to declare the candidate validly nominated to be elected in case of a poll he is to declare under rule 34 the candidates accuring the largest number of votes to be elected. There is also a provision as to what he should do in case of equality of votes. Just as under rule 14 the Returning Officer is to declare the candidate validly nominated to be elected in case of a poll he is to declare under rule 34 the candidates accuring the largest number of votes to be elected. There is also a provision as to what he should do in case of equality of votes. Rules 35 and 36 which are material read as under :-35 Posting of result of election by Returning Officer :- The Returning Officer shall cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted at the village chavdi or at the Panchayat Office or at such other public place if any appointed in that behalf by him and shall report such names immediately to the Taluka Development Officer. 36 Publication of result of election :- Taluka Development Officer shall then publish the names of elected candidates by causing a list thereof to be posted up at his office the village chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat :-PROVIDED that the District Development Officer shall before the publication of the names of the elected candidates be competent to correct any mistakes if any in the names of such candidates. IT is obvious that the posting of names under rule 35 would apply to candidates declared by the Returning Officer elected under rule 14 as also candidates declared to be elected under rule 34. Those names are to be reported by him to the Taluka Development Officer who in turn is required under rule 36 to publish the names in the manner laid down therein. The proviso to rule 36 empowers the District Development Officer to correct any mistakes before the publication of the names of the elected candidates by the Taluka Development Officer. ( 8 ) IT will be noticed that in the Gram Panchayat Rules there are three different stages where it can be said a declaration relating to the results of the election has taken pleace. The first stage is rule 14 in respect of uncontested election and rule 34 in respect of contested election. Under these rules the Returning Officer is to declare the names of elected candidates. The second stage is rule 35 under which the posting of the elected candidates is required to be done by the Returning Officer. The third stage is the publication of the names by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36. Under these rules the Returning Officer is to declare the names of elected candidates. The second stage is rule 35 under which the posting of the elected candidates is required to be done by the Returning Officer. The third stage is the publication of the names by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36. Now it is not the contention of Mr. Daru for the petitioners that the declaration made by the Returning Officer under rule 14 or rule 34 is enough to constitute a declaration as contemplated by sec. 24 (1) and the reason is obvious. Rule 14 although it uses the word declare does not provides for the declaration made thereunder to be made in presence of any person or in a particular manner. At the time of the declaration under rule 34 it is possible though not certain that the candidates and their election and counting agents may be present because that declaration follows the counting of votes under rule 31 and at the time of counting it appears to be permissible for the candidates and their election or counting agents to be present as can be seen from clauses (ii) and (v) of sub-rule (2) of rule 31 but at the time of the declaration under rule 14 no such presence is required or can be predicated. Under sec. 24 (1) any person qualified to vote at the election is entitled to apply to bring in question the validity of an election of a member and therefore the declaration contemplated by that provision must be one which bring to the notices of every person qualified to vote at the election the results of the election. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word declare which means to make known to announce. A mere declaration under rule 14 or rule 34 would not serve that purpose. Therefore although the expression `declare is used in these two rules and an obligation is imposed on the Returning Officer to declare the names of the elected candidates the use of the word declare or the performance of that obligation does not constitute the action of the Returning Officer under those rules a declaration of the results of the election. Therefore although the expression `declare is used in these two rules and an obligation is imposed on the Returning Officer to declare the names of the elected candidates the use of the word declare or the performance of that obligation does not constitute the action of the Returning Officer under those rules a declaration of the results of the election. Neither rule 14 nor rule 34 indicates the place where the declaration by the Returning Officer is to be made and there is no guarantee it will be a public place. The learned trial Judge rightly points out that the office of Returning Officer may not be in the village for which the election is held and the counting may not take place in the village itself and therefore it is not unlikely that the declaration under these rules may be made by the Returning Officer at a place away from the village. The learned Judge rightly points out that there was no guarantee that all the voters will be in a position to know the fact of such declaration. Mr. Daru concedes that the declaration by the Returning Officer under rule 14 or rule 34 would not be a declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec. 24 (1 ). ( 9 ) THE question then is whether it is the posting of the names by the Returning Officer under rule 35 that is the declaration so contemplated or whether it is the publication of the results of the election by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36. In either case the names of the elected candidates are made known. The posting of names under rule 35 may be at the village chavdi or the Panchayat Office or at such other public place if any appointed in that behalf by the Returning Officer whereas the publication under rule 36 is to be at the office of the Taluka Development Officer rat the village chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat. It is obvious that the publication under rule 36 is much wider. In respect of the posting under rule 35 the matter is left to the discretion of the Returning Officer as to where the posting should be made; whether at the village chavdi or at the Panchayat Office or at such other public place to be appointed by him in this behalf. In respect of the posting under rule 35 the matter is left to the discretion of the Returning Officer as to where the posting should be made; whether at the village chavdi or at the Panchayat Office or at such other public place to be appointed by him in this behalf. There is no provision that he shall announce where the posting of names will take place It may be conceded that the expression `such other public place necessarily imports in the context a public place in the village itself. Even so there is no guarantee that the posting at such public place would come to the notice of all the voters because the voters would not be aware as to which of the three modes the Returning Officer is going to adopt in the matter of posting of names and the Returning Officer is under no obligation to make it known to the public which mode he has adopted. The publication under rule 36 however is besides being wider definite as to places. That being so unless the language of the relevant provisions of the Act or the rules compels a construction advocated on behalf of the petitioners the more reasonable construction having regard to the object of sec. 24 (1) is the one accepted by the learned Judge. There is nothing in the provisions of the rules which compels the construction advocated by the petitioners but on the other hand the construction placed by the learned Judge is more in accord with the scheme of the three kinds of Panchayats. Before I turn to the rules relating to the other Panchayat namely the Taluka Panchayats and the District Panchayats it will be appropriate to refer to a few other considerations bearing on the matter. ( 10 ) THE posting of names under rule 35 by the Returning Officer may take place on different dates. The Returning Officer is non required to cause a consolidated list of the elected candidates to be posted but only to cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted. Some of the candidates may be elected unopposed and some may be elected on the counting of votes and it is open to the Returning Officer to post the names of those candidates as and when the election uncontested or contested as the case may be is complete. Some of the candidates may be elected unopposed and some may be elected on the counting of votes and it is open to the Returning Officer to post the names of those candidates as and when the election uncontested or contested as the case may be is complete. Even in respect of the elected candidates the counting of votes in some electoral division may be over at one time and in another at another or in those cases where there is equality of votes the determination of the person entitled to an additional vote under rule 34 (4) may take place on another date. There is no provision that is shall be made on the same date. There is therefore a possibility of names even of elected candidates under rule 36 being declared and posted on different dates. It is in theory also conceivable that the posting in respect of one electoral division may take place at the village chavdi of another electoral division at the Panchayat Office and a third electoral division at such other public place as may be appointed in that behalf by the Returning Officer. Mr. Daru argued that this may make no difference because the election is electoral division wise and the person entitled to challenge the election is a person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers. That no doubt is true. But the point of matter is that even in respect of the same electorate division there may be two dates if some seats are reserved and some are unreserved and in respect of the reserved seats for example there is no contest the number of candidates being equal to the number of seats and in respect of unreserved seats there is a contest. Sec. 24 (1) confers a right on a person qualified to vote to bring into question the validity of any election of a member of that Panchayat and constitutes a forum therefor. The limitation of time on his exercise of that right must be so construed as not to make the exercise of the right effective. The construction placed on the expression declaration of the results of the election must therefore be such as does not require the voter to go in search of the declaration from time to time. That is one more consideration which favours the construction that the declaration contemplated by sec. The construction placed on the expression declaration of the results of the election must therefore be such as does not require the voter to go in search of the declaration from time to time. That is one more consideration which favours the construction that the declaration contemplated by sec. 24 (1) is in so far as concerns the Gram Panchayat the publication in the form of a list of the name of the elected candidates under rule 36. ( 11 ) IT can no doubt be argued that if the posting under rule 35 is not to amount to a declaration as contemplated by sec. 24 (1) there is no object served by that posting. No such posting of names by the Returning Officer is provided for in the Taluka Panchayats Rules or the District Panchayats Rules to which reference will be made presently and therefore the posting under rule 35 cannot be without meaning. There is a possible explanation for this posting an explanation referred to by the learned trial Judge. That explanation has reference to the proviso to rule 36. Rule 36 requires the Taluka Development Officer to publish the names of the elected candidates reported to him by the Returning Officer and the proviso reads Provided that the District Development Officer shall before the publication of the names of the elected candidates be competent to correct any mistakes if any in the names of such candidates. The posting was perhaps meant to enable the candidates or their election agents to move the District Development Officer to see that the mistakes in the paper if any are corrected. However whether that explanation is or is not the whole explanation for rule 9a the other considerations in favour of the construction that the publication under rule 36 which is referable to sec. 18 (2) is the publication which amounts to a declaration of the results of the election under section 24 (1) remain. ( 12 ) RULE 37 (1) may also be noticed. It concerns a situation where the same person is elected from more than one electoral division. 18 (2) is the publication which amounts to a declaration of the results of the election under section 24 (1) remain. ( 12 ) RULE 37 (1) may also be noticed. It concerns a situation where the same person is elected from more than one electoral division. This rule gives 7 days time from the date of the publication of the result of the election within which the person elected from more than one electoral division of the same Panchayat shall choose for which of the electoral division he shall serve and resign his other seat or seats. When it speaks of the publication of the result of the election it obviously refers to the publication under rule 36 the heading of which is publication of result of election and under which there is a single publication of the list of names of elected candidates. This is an indication that the curtain is finally rung on the election with the date of the publication of the results of the election. That was what appears to have been intended by sec. 18 (3) of the Act and it would be proper for that reason also to accept the date of that publication as the date of the declaration of the result of the election. ( 13 ) THE relevant rules relating to the election to the Taluka Panchayats and the District Panchayats may now be referred to in brief. The rules relating to the election of members of a Taluka Panchayat are the Gujarat Taluka Panchayats (Election) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Taluka Panchayats Rules ). The scheme is broadly the same. The Returning Officer is designated as the Election Officer. Rule 9a provides for the uncontested election and says so far as material that if the number of candidates validly nominated is equal to the number of members to be elected the Election Officer shall declare the candidates so nominated to be elected without any votes being taken. The names of members so elected are required by that rule to be published in the same manner as laid down under rule 19. The names of members so elected are required by that rule to be published in the same manner as laid down under rule 19. Rule 19 which is headed Declaration and publication of results provides that as soon as the votes have been counted the Election Officer shall communicate the result to the District Develop ment Officer who shall publish the names of the elected members by causing a list thereof to be posted at his office the office of the Mamlatdar or Mahalkari of the Taluka or Mahal as the case may be and the office of the Taluka Panchayat. Therefore rule 19 corresponds to rule 36 of the Gram Panchayats Rules. There is no rule in the Taluka Panchayats Rules corresponding to rule 35 of the Gram Panchayats Rules that is to say there is no obligation on the Election Officer to post the names of the elected candidates. The rules relating to the District Panchayats called the Gujarat District Panchayats (Election) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the District Panchayats Rules) follow the same pattern as the Taluka Panchayats Rules except that the Election Officer is designated here as the Returning Officer. Rule 23 of these rules relates to uncontested election and it provides that in any electoral division if there is only one contesting candidate then the candidate so contesting shall be declared by the Returning Officer to have been elected without any votes being taken. The Returning Officer shall forthwith communicate the name of such candidate to the District Development Officer and the District Development Officer shall thereupon publish the name of such candidate in the manner specified in rule 59. Rule 69 which is headed Declaration and Publication of result provides in sub-rule (1) that when the counting of votes has been completed the Returning Officer shall forthwith communicate in writing to the District Development Officer the name of the candi date in such electoral division to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given. The District Development Officer shall thereupon publish the names in the Official Gazette and shall at the same time cause a copy of the order to be affixed at some conspicuous place in the office and in the office of the Mamlatdar or Mahalkari as the case may be. The District Development Officer shall thereupon publish the names in the Official Gazette and shall at the same time cause a copy of the order to be affixed at some conspicuous place in the office and in the office of the Mamlatdar or Mahalkari as the case may be. ( 14 ) IT will be noticed that in the Taluka Panchayats Rules and the District Panchayats Rules the only publication of the names of the elected candidates is the one by the District Development Officer. The relevant rule relating to that publication is clearly referable to sec. 18 (3) of the Act. This publication is obviously the declaration of results as contemplated by sec. 24 (1) of the Act so far as elections to these Panchayats are concerned. No doubt the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Rules must be construed in the light of their own wording and context and the presents or absence of homogeneity or uniformity with the Taluka and District Panchayats Rules which relate to elections to different bodies cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of construction when the Gram Panchayats Rules are clear but the fact that a construction has the added merit of promoting such homogeneity or uniformity is a factor not to be overlooked. In this case on a consideration of the Gram Panchayats Rules by themselves it is clear that the more reasonable construction is to hold that the publication under a rule preferable to sec. 18 (3) constitutes the declaration of the results of the election. The fact that the same is the position under the Taluka and District Panchayats Election Rules lends support to that construction. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons I am inclined to hold agreeing with the learned trial Judge that the declaration of the results of the election in the present case took place at the time the result was published by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36 of the Gram Panchayat Rules and as the application under sec. 24 (1) was made within 15 days after that date it was in time. This petition therefore fails and is rejected. Rule discharged with costs. .