Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1969 DIGILAW 58 (KAR)

A. F. LAWRENCE v. STATE OF MYSORE

1969-07-01

B.M.KALAGATE, SOMNATH IYER

body1969
( 1 ) THE two petitioners before us are voters in the area of the Town Municipal council of Kushalnagar in the district of Coorg, and they ask us in this writ petition to stop an election which is announced by an election calendar published by the Returning Officer under Rule 8 of the Mysore municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1965 which will be referred to as the Rules. The election calendar made the announcement that the last date for the production of the nomination papers was November 28, 1968 and that the polling would be on December 23, 1968. That election calendar was published in the Official Gazette bearing the date november 28, 1968. The impeachment of the publication of the election calendar is that it was not made in obedience to Rule 8 (1) (c) of the Rules. During the pendency of these proceedings, an application IA. II is made by two persons who produced their nomination papers before the returning Officer. They ask for a permission to intervene in these proceedings. But we do not think we should allow such intervention. We dismiss IA. No. II. ( 2 ) NOW, the relevant part of Rule 8 reads :"r. 8. Publication of election calendar- (1) Whenever it is necessary to hold an election under S. 17 or an election to fill a casual vacancy under Sec. 19, the Returning Officer shall publish a notice stating;. . . . . . ',. . . . (c) the last date for making nominations which shall be the seventh day after the date of publication of the notice under this sub-rule or, if that day is a public holiday the next succeeding day which is, not a public holiday and the place at which such nomination papers are to be delivered. " ( 3 ) THE requirement of this clause is that the election calendar should announce the last date for making nominations between which and the date of publication of the election calendar there should be an interval of seven clear days. But what the Returning Officer did in this case was to publish the election calendar in the Gazette of November 28, 1968 and to state in that election calendar that that date was also the last date for making nominations. ( 4 ) THE argument constructed on this feature of the publication of the election calendar by Mr. But what the Returning Officer did in this case was to publish the election calendar in the Gazette of November 28, 1968 and to state in that election calendar that that date was also the last date for making nominations. ( 4 ) THE argument constructed on this feature of the publication of the election calendar by Mr. Keshava lyengar was that the publication transgressed the provisions of Rule 8 (1) (c) and he is right in making the submission. Although Rule 8 (1) which directs the publication of an election calendar, which is, referred to as a notice in that rule, does not specify the manner of publication of that election calendar, it is clear from Rule 2 (3) of the Rules that that publication has to be made in the Official gazette. That sub-rule reads :"the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 (Mysore Act III of 1899) shall apply for the interpretation of these rules as it applies to a mysore Act. " ( 5 ) THE rule of interpretation which that sub-rule incorporates through the instrumentality of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 is to be found in section 30 of that Act which reads :"30. Publication of orders and notification in the Official Gazette. Where in any Mysore Act, or in any Rule made under any Mysore act, it is directed that any order, notification or other matter, shall be notified or published, such notification or publication shall unless the act otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the Official Gazette. " ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH this section as it stands assists the interpretation of a provision in a mysore Act which was operating in the area of the former state of Mysore and of a rule made under such law, the interpretation of the Election Rules as directed by Rule 2 (3) of the Rules has also to be made in accordance with the rule of interpretation which S. 30 of the Mysore general Clauses Act incorporates. Now, although Rule 8 of the Rules directs the publication of an election calendar, no rule specifies the manner of publication and there is no provision either in the Election Rules or the Mysore Municipalities Act at variance with the rule of construction directed by S. 30 of the General Clauses Act. Now, although Rule 8 of the Rules directs the publication of an election calendar, no rule specifies the manner of publication and there is no provision either in the Election Rules or the Mysore Municipalities Act at variance with the rule of construction directed by S. 30 of the General Clauses Act. So, the publication of the election calendar could be deemed to have been duly made only when it appears in the Official Gazette. ( 7 ) THE material date for the computation of the period of seven days specified in Rule 8 (1) (c) is therefore the date on which the election calendar appeared in the Official Gazette, which, in the case before us, was november 28, 1968. But that was also the date which was announced to be the last date for making nominations. That being so, there was no interval whatsoever between the date of the publication of the election calendar and the last date specified for making nominations, and that is what amounts to plain disobedience of rule 8 (1) (c) of the Rules. ( 8 ) THIS writ petition was presented on December 13, 1968 ten days before the polling date and by an interim order made by this Court the election stands stayed. But that election cannot now proceed since it was not preceded by the publication of an election calendar in accordance with law. We accordingly quash the impugned election calendar published by the returning Officer. ( 9 ) WHAT the Returning Officer has now to do is to publish the election calendar in manner provided by Rule 8 (1) (c) and to proceed with the election in accordance with the chronology of events to be specified in it. Since this writ petition succeeds on a short ground, we do not say anything about the other contentions raised in this writ petition. We make no direction in regard to costs. --- *** --- .