JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of the elections of the members or some of the members of many Municipal Boards and several Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees in Uttar Pradesh, as also those of the presidents or Chairman, as the case may be, thereof or some of them, has been questioned. The impugned elections were held on May 30, 1971 to elect members of the Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees. The election of the Chairman of Town Area Committee took place on the same date simultaneously with the general elections to elect members thereof as required by Sec. 8-A of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, under which the Chairman also are to be elected by the electors. The Presidents of Municipal Boards and of Notified Area Committee are to be elected by the elected members. The elections of the Presidents took place on June 22, 1971. All the petitions were filed after May 31, 1971 when the results of the elections of the members had been declared. Some of them were filed shortly before June 22, 1971, but the majority after that date. In some cases ad interim orders were passed by this Court staying the declaration of the result of the election of the President and in some cases staying the issuance of notification under Sec. 56 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 referred to as the Act hereinafter) which requires inter alia every election of a member or President of a Board and the due constitution of the Board to be notified in the official Gazette. This section applies to Notified Areas also, which are constituted under Sec. 337 of the Act. All the interim orders, however, were subsequently vacated after contest. The position before the hearing of these petitions commenced, thus, was that all the members, Presidents and Chairman concerned had assumed their respective offices and the Boards, Notified Area Committees and the Town Area Committees bad been constituted and were functioning as such. 2. Sec. 6 of the Act provides that in every Municipality there shall be a municipal Board which, under Sec. 9, shall consist of the president. and the elected members who shall not be less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may specify. 2. Sec. 6 of the Act provides that in every Municipality there shall be a municipal Board which, under Sec. 9, shall consist of the president. and the elected members who shall not be less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may specify. Sec. 10 empowers the State Government to vary the normal composition of a Board under circumstances specified therein. Except in the cases of supersession or dissolution, the consequences where of are provided for in Sec. 31 and 31-A of the Act, the term of every board, shall, under Sec. 10-A, be five years from the date of the Publication of the notification under Sec. 56. Power, however, has been given to the State Government to extend the term of all or any of the boards from time to time upto a maximum period of two years. Secs. 11-A, 11-B and 11-C relate to and provide for delimitation of wards. Sec. 13-A provides that the election of the members of a board shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. Sec. 12-B provides that there shall be an electoral roll for every ward to be prepared in the manner laid down. Under Sec. 12-C every person, other than a person disqualified under Sec. 12-D, who is qualified to be registered in the Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the ward or whose name is entered therein, shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of the ward. The electoral roll for each ward is required to be prepared by an Electoral Registration Officer under Sec. 12-F. The electoral roll for each ward is required by Sec. 12-G to be revised every year in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Sec. 12-H empowers the State Government to make, by order, provisions in respect of the matters, mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) thereof, concerning the electoral rolls. The State Government has made an order under this Section called the U.P. Municipalities (Preparation and Revision of Electoral Rolls) Order, 1953, which shall hereafter be referred as the Electoral Rolls Order. Sec. 13-A provides that except as provided in Secs. The State Government has made an order under this Section called the U.P. Municipalities (Preparation and Revision of Electoral Rolls) Order, 1953, which shall hereafter be referred as the Electoral Rolls Order. Sec. 13-A provides that except as provided in Secs. 31 and 31-A there shall be a general election to a board before the expiry of the term or the extended term of the board on such date or dates as the State Government, may, be notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf. The conduct of election under the Act is, under Sec. 13-B to be supervised by the Director of Elections (Local Bodies). Secs. 13-C and 13-D lay down respectively the qualification and disqualifications for membership of a board. Sec. 13-E (1) provides that except as expressly provided by the Act, every person who is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any ward shall be entitled to vote in that ward and that no person who is not so entered shall be entitled to vote. Sub-sec. (2) debars a person disqualified under Sec. 12 D from voting. Sec. 13-G empowers the State Government to make provision, by order, with respect to matters specified in clauses (a) to (q) concerning conduct of elections. In exercise of this power the State Government has made an order called the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964, which shall hereafter be referred to as the Election Order. Sec. 13-K provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition and bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain and adjudicate. upon any question whether a person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll of a ward or to question the legality of any action taken or decision given by an Electoral Registration Officer or the Returning Officer. Sec. 19 provides for filing of election petitions and the grounds upon which they can or cannot be filed. Sec. 43 required the elected members to elect a President, as soon as may be, after election of members, Sec. 43-AA lays down the qualification for presidentship. Sec. 43-B provides that no election of the President shall be called in question except by an election petition. Sec. 43 required the elected members to elect a President, as soon as may be, after election of members, Sec. 43-AA lays down the qualification for presidentship. Sec. 43-B provides that no election of the President shall be called in question except by an election petition. Sec. 43-C empowers the State Government to make provision, by order, with respect to matters specified in clauses (a) to (r) regarding election of Presidents. In exercise of this power the State Government has made an order called the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and Election Petitions) order, 1961, which shall hereafter be referred to as the President's Election Order. 3. Notified Areas are constituted by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it in that behalf under Sec. 337 of the Act, and are also governed by the provisions thereof as adapted or applied to them by the State Government by notification under Sec. 338. The Electoral Rolls Order (made in 1953 by the State Government under Sec. 12-H of the Act) has been adapted and applied to Notified Areas also without any material change or difference. The State Government, however, has made a separate Order under Sec. 43-C which is called the U.P. Notified Areas (Conduct of Election of President and Election Petitions) Order, 1964. The provisions of this Order do not differ materially from those of the President's Election Order referred to above. 4. The U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 contains provisions which in respect of matters relevant for the purposes of the instant cases are analogous to those of the Act noted above. The material Secs. this Act are Secs. 2, 5, 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-E, 6-F, 6-I, 6-J, 6-K, 8-A which correspond to Secs. 8-A (the definitions of the word "election", "elector", "Director of Elections (Local Bodies), and "ward" being for all practical purposes identical), 9-, 10-A, 12, A, 11-A, 12-B, 13-A, 13-B, 13-E, 13-X, 13-C 13-D, and 43. The State Government has been empowered by Sec. 6-H of this Act to suitably apply, by order, to an election of a member the provisions of the Act regarding, inter alia, delimitation of wards, preparation of electoral rolls etc. for each ward. Sec. 39 confers on the State Government power to make rules applicable to all or any town areas for carrying out the purposes of this Act. for each ward. Sec. 39 confers on the State Government power to make rules applicable to all or any town areas for carrying out the purposes of this Act. An order called the U.P. Town Areas (Conduct of Elections of Members) Order, 1964 has been made by the State Government which is similar to the Order made in 1964 under Sec. 13-G of the Act. Under Sec. 39 the State Government has made rules called the U.P. Town Areas (Conduct of Election of Chairman) Rules, 1964. The State Government has made an order called the U.P. Town Area (Preparation and revision of Electoral Rolls) order, 1953 by suitably adapting the Electoral Rolls order (made under Sec. 12-H of the Act) . There is no material difference between these Orders. 5. Before the holding of the impugned elections, general elections to municipal boards and notified area Committees were held in 1964 and to town areas Committees in 1965. The normal term of town areas Committees is four years and of the other two bodies five years, expendable upto a maximum period of two years. The normal term of all these bodies with which we are concerned had expired and their lives had been extended from time to' time. It, however, appears that they could not be further extended beyond July 31, 1971. 6. The Director of Elections (Local Bodies) by order dated April 14, 1971 under Paragraph 15 of the Electoral Rolls Order (1953) directed the electoral rolls of the wards of all Municipalities, Notified Areas and Town Areas, as adapted on the basis of the Assembly Electoral Rolls, prepared in connection with the Parliamentary elections held in 1971, to be published on April 17, 1971 for purposes of annual revision. Telegraphic instructions in this behalf had been sent on April 13, 1971 to all the District Magistrate. It may here be mentioned that the Assembly Electoral Rolls in question had been finally published on January 15, 1971 and the Lok Sabha elections were held in March, 1971. Telegraphic instructions in this behalf had been sent on April 13, 1971 to all the District Magistrate. It may here be mentioned that the Assembly Electoral Rolls in question had been finally published on January 15, 1971 and the Lok Sabha elections were held in March, 1971. A Lal of controversies emanate from and centre round the aforesaid order and its implementation, some of them involving disputed questions of fact, such as, whether in certain cases the ward electoral rolls were published at all or published in the manner prescribed, whether objections and claims were made within time, whether some claims and objections were promptly decided and the decision of some of them was put off or delayed deliberately to favour some individuals or parties, whether amended rolls were correctly prepared or lists of amendments were printed or published. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be appropriately or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article. 226 of the Constitution of the basis of affidavits containing assertions and denials, allegations and counter allegations. Nor do we consider it expedient or advisable to do so. Some questions of law, however, have also been raised which will be considered later. 7. While proceedings for the implementation of the aforesaid order dated April 14, 1971 were pending, the State Government by three separate notifications dated May 7, 1971 called upon all the wards of various Municipalities, Notified Areas and Town Areas to elect members before June 5, 1971 to fill seats on their respective Boards or Committees as laid down in their respective Delimitation Order's and appointed May 12, 1971 for making nominations and May 30, 1971 for the taking of `polls. In the case of Town Areas, by the same notification the same dates were appointed for the election of Chairman of each Town Area. By separate notifications, which are all dated June 8, 1971, the District Magistrate concerned appointed June 14, 1871 for making nominations and June 22, 1971 for the taking of polls for the election of President of each Municipal Board or Notified Area Committee concerned. 8. Two questions of law of general nature have been specifically raised in some of the petitions. It has been pleaded therein that no fresh delimitation of wards and no fresh delimitation Orders having been made by the State Government, general elections could not be legally held or ordered to be held. 8. Two questions of law of general nature have been specifically raised in some of the petitions. It has been pleaded therein that no fresh delimitation of wards and no fresh delimitation Orders having been made by the State Government, general elections could not be legally held or ordered to be held. The above noted notifications dated May 7, 1971, requiring elections to be held on the basis of the existing Delimitation Orders, therefore, were wholly illegal and the impugned, elections held in compliance thereof were void. The second contention is that unless fresh electoral rolls were prepared after general and wholesale revision of the existing rolls, general elections could not have been legally held. Since this was not done, the impugned elections are no elections in the eye of law. The arguments advanced in support of or against these contention by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the said petitions have been adopted by the learned counsel for the parties in other petitions. Since these pleas are fundamental in nature and do not involve any questions of fact, petitioners other than those who have specifically taken them were also permitted to adopt them. After hearing all the learned counsel who made submissions supporting or opposing these proposition and after carefully considering the matter ourselves, we find them untenable. 9. All Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees owe their existence to statutory provisions contained in the Act and the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914. This is not disputed. Under Sec. 9 of the Act. The normal composition of a Municipal Board shall, except as otherwise provided by Sec. 10, consist of the President and the elected members who shall not be less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify. The normal composition of Boards of certain municipalities can be varied by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred on it in Sec. 10. These Sections also apply to Notified Area Committees. Under Sec. 6 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 a Town Area Committee shall consist of the Chairman and the elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen as the State Government may specify. These Sections also apply to Notified Area Committees. Under Sec. 6 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 a Town Area Committee shall consist of the Chairman and the elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen as the State Government may specify. From Sec. 9 and Sec. 6 referred to above, it is clear that the strength of elected members, whether it be of a Municipal Board, or a Notified Area Committee or a Town Area Committee, is not statutorily co-related with the numerical strength of the persons ordinarily residing within the territorial limits of the Municipality, Notified Area or Town Area nor with that of the electors (viz the persons whose names are for the time being entered in the electoral roll) of any ward or wards thereof. Therefore, merely because of the increase in the number of residents in any ward or wards, the strength of the elected members does not undergo any change. This aspect of the composition of Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committee and Town Area Committees has a direct and important bearing on the first proposition mooted by the petitioner that without fresh delimitation of wards the impugned general elections could not have been validly held. It goes to show that no delimitation of wards was legally necessary nor was obligatory on the State Government to make fresh Delimitation Orders before calling upon the wards to elect members. 10. Secs. 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C of the Act relate to delimitation of wards and the making of Delimitation Orders. They apply to Municipalities and Notified Areas. The corresponding Sections of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 are Secs. 6-A and 6H. The latter Sections enables the State Government to apply the provisions of the Act regarding delimitation of wards for purposes of elections. Sec. 11-A (1) of the Act provides that for purposes of election to a Board there shall be wards provided by order under Sec. 11-B. Sub-set. (2) of this Section provides that the representation of each ward shall be on the basis of population of that ward as ascertained at the last census and shall as far as possible be in the same proportion as the total number of seats for the Municipality and its population. The said Sub-sec. provides for allocation or re-allocation of the number of seats allotted to each ward. The said Sub-sec. provides for allocation or re-allocation of the number of seats allotted to each ward. But the numerical strength of members fixed by the State Government continues to remain the same unless it is increased or decreased by the State Government again. Sec. 11-B requires the State Government by order to determine the number of wards in which each Municipality shall be divided for purposes of election to the Board; the extent of each ward; the number of seats allotted to each ward; and the number of seats, if any, reserved, for the schedule caste. It further provides for the publication of the draft order for objections for a period of not less than 15 days and directs that a copy of the order shall be sent to the Board or Boards concerned for comments. It further requires the State Government to consider the objections, if any, and the comments filed by the Board concerned, and to amend, alter or modify the draft order, if necessary, which thereafter becomes final. Under Sec. 11-C the State Government has been given the power by the a subsequent order to alter or amend the final delimitation order under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 11-B after consulting the Board concerned. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act it is clear that the representations of each ward is to be determined on the basis of the population of that ward. as ascertained at the last census. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that the impugned elections were held without following the mandatory provision contained in Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11-A of the Act. The contention was that census operations having taken place in 1970 it was incumbent on the state Government to make fresh delimitation orders in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11-B. Admittedly this was not done. It was, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that the result of the last census operations not having been published as required under the Census Act, no question of making any fresh delimitation order could legally arise because unless the census results are duly published as required and in the manner provided by the Census Act, Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11-A cannot be applicable. The making of fresh Delimitation Orders was, therefore, neither called for nor obligatory. (2) of Sec. 11-A cannot be applicable. The making of fresh Delimitation Orders was, therefore, neither called for nor obligatory. It was stated that the census results of the census operations held in 1970 had not been published till May 7, 1971 and even when the elections were held. This was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In our opinion the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents must be accepted. Realising the weakness of their argument the learned counsel for the petitioners did not also seriously press the submission based on non-compliance of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11-A and the omission to make fresh Delimitation Orders by the State Government. 11. The second contention, noted above rest on the hypothesis that no general elections, whatever be its purpose, can be held until and unless there has been a comprehensive and overall revision of the existing electoral rolls, if any, pertaining to all the Constituencies or wards from which the allotted seats have to be filled by the process of election. If there are no electoral rolls in existence, electoral have to be prepared in respect of each constituency so as to register therein all persons qualified to exercise their rights as electors. It was submitted that such procedure is inherent in all general elections and must be held to be implicit in general elections as well under the Act and the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 to elect members and Presidents and Chairman, as the case may be for constitution of Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees. This submission was founded mainly on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shiam Dani, AIR 1957 SC 304 P. 12. "It is of the essence of these election that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualification. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein a entertaining objections to such enrolments. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein a entertaining objections to such enrolments. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion therefore, necessary for the chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and insofar as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective." 12. In the aforesaid case, Radhey Shyam Dani had filed a writ petition in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer against the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and the District Magistrate, Ajmer, inter alia for a mandamus against the former to reconstitute the Ajmer Municipal Committee by a properly made and published notification under Sec. 8 (1) of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 and an order against the latter restraining him from holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 5, 1955 as notified. The said Committee had been suspended and was to remain suspended till September 11, 1955. The Chief Commissioner in view of the impending elections to Committee after that date framed Election Rules, 1955 under Sec. 43 of the aforesaid Regulation and published them on August 4, 1955. Then on August 8, 1955 he notified the election programme and also authenticated and published an electoral roll corrected and altered by the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer previously. Dani, whose name had been incorrectly noted therein, applied for correction and filed his nomination paper on August 16, 1955 which was rejected next day on the ground that he was not on elector according to the roll. His application for rectification of the mistake in the parliamentary Electoral Roll was rejected on August 18, 1955 on the ground that as the rolls of the Municipal elections had been finally published on August 8, 1955 no correction could be made. Dani then filed the writ petitioner on August 26, 1965. His application for rectification of the mistake in the parliamentary Electoral Roll was rejected on August 18, 1955 on the ground that as the rolls of the Municipal elections had been finally published on August 8, 1955 no correction could be made. Dani then filed the writ petitioner on August 26, 1965. The learned judicial Commissioner accepted the contention in regard to reconstitution of the Municipal Committee but did not issue any direction as a notification in that behalf had already been issued, He, however, directed the District Magistrate to refrain from holding the elections and poll on September 5, 1955. The Chief Commissioner filed an appeal in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 13. In the Supreme Court the point for consideration was as to the correctness or otherwise of the pronouncement of the learned Judicial Commissioner holding that Rule 7 of the Election Rules was not in consonance with but was in contradiction to Sec. 30 (2) of the Regulation and also in excess of the rule-making power conferred upon the Chief Commissioner and that the elections proposed to be held on September 5, 1955 were not lawful. The decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. The provisions which fell for consideration were Secs. 30 and 43 of the Regulation and Rules 7 and 9 of the Election Rules framed under Sec. 43 (c) and published under Sec. 248(4) Sec. 30 (1) provided that a person shall not be deemed to be an elector for any purpose of the Regulation or any rule unless he is enrolled as an elector. Sub-sec. (2), as amended in 1950 was construed by the Supreme Court to provide for adopting the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency as the basis of the electoral roll of the Municipality but it did not eliminate the further steps in the matter of the revision of such electoral roll, as also the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and objections to such enrolments, nor absolved the Municipalities from the obligation of providing for the revision of such roll as well as the adjudication of such claims and objections. By Rule 7 it was provided that the electoral roll for the particular Municipalities shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary constituency representing the area concerned by the Municipality. By Rule 7 it was provided that the electoral roll for the particular Municipalities shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary constituency representing the area concerned by the Municipality. It thus dispensed with the independent preparation by the Municipality of the electoral roll but did nothing further. Rule 9 provided that no person shall be deemed to be an elector for the purpose of the Rules unless his name appeared in the electoral rolls referred to in Rule 7. It was held that if Rules 7 and 9 were intended to form a complete code for the finalisation of the electoral roll of the Municipality they did not serve the intended purpose and were either inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 30 (2) of the Regulation or were defective insofar as they failed to provide for the proper procedure for taking the steps for revision and adjudication of claims and objections for finalising the electoral roll of the Municipality. It is, thus, abundantly clear that the observations of Supreme Court quoted above on which the second contention under consideration is founded were made solely with reference to the aforesaid provisions of the Regulation and the Rules. The Supreme Court did not lay down any general rule or law which is implicit in all election process or procedure. In the instant cases, the petitioners have not questioned the validity of any of provisions of the Act or the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 nor those of any Rules or Orders made thereunder. The Electoral Rolls order contains adequate provision for correction and revision of the electoral rolls of the wards. The second contention must, therefore, be held to be without force and untenable. Before proceeding to consider the other points raised in these cases it may be mentioned that on behalf of the petitioners reliance was also placed on a number of other rulings. They may also be briefly considered. 14. In Dr. Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee v. B.N. Bose, AIR 1953 Calcutta 520, the writ petition was filed before the holding of certain municipal elections under Sec. 26 of the Bengal Municipal Act praying that the authorities concerned be ordered to forbear from giving effect to and holding elections under certain order issued in that behalf. 14. In Dr. Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee v. B.N. Bose, AIR 1953 Calcutta 520, the writ petition was filed before the holding of certain municipal elections under Sec. 26 of the Bengal Municipal Act praying that the authorities concerned be ordered to forbear from giving effect to and holding elections under certain order issued in that behalf. Bose, J. held Rule 16 of the Bengal Municipal Election Rules provides in definite and unambiguous terms that before an election under Sec. 26 is held revision of electoral roll is necessary and shall be made, and that as the impugned orders were made in contravention of Rule 16 the petitioners had made out a case for interference by the High Court. In this case by the impugned orders revision of the electoral roll had been obviated. 15. In Parmeshwar Mahaseth v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Patna 149 the writ petition was filed after the holding of the general elections to elect the Commissioners of the Darbhanga Municipality challenging the entire election. The petition was allowed on two grounds (1) breach of the Mandatory provision of Rule 7 of the relevant Election Rules which required the impugned notification dated 9th May, 1956. Calling upon the electors of all the wards to elect Commissioners to be published in the Bihar Gazette, and (2) the relevant provisions of the Election Rules and the Act concerned did not dispense with the preparation of a separate register of voters ward by ward, though on the basis of the relatable Assembly electoral roll, to be prepared and published before the holding of the election is notified. 16. In A.R. Karmakar v. The Commissioner of Banihal Municipality, AIR 1959 Cal. 548 the writ petition was filed praying that the ensuing general elections be not allowed to proceed without a proper Electoral Roll being prepared and published in accordance with law. As soon as the preliminary Electoral Roll was published objection was taken to it as a whole. No notice of the objection was taken and the final Electoral Roll prepared in the same manner and with same defects as the preliminary Electoral Roll, was published. Objection was also taken against the final Electoral Roll but with no effect. The petitioners then approached the High Court. No notice of the objection was taken and the final Electoral Roll prepared in the same manner and with same defects as the preliminary Electoral Roll, was published. Objection was also taken against the final Electoral Roll but with no effect. The petitioners then approached the High Court. Holding that the impugned Electoral Roll which did not ensure the identification of the voter had not been prepared in accordance with law and was not an electoral roll as contemplated by the relevant Act and the rules, Sinha, J. allowed the petition. 17. In Des Prakash v. Babu Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 429 (FB) the entire election to the Municipal Committee of Nuh was challenged two months after the publication of the impugned final electoral roll and also after the result of the election was known. Mahajan, J. allowed the petition but an appeal was filed against his judgment and order. This appeal was allowed by a Full Bench of three learned Judges holding that the relevant rules were substantially complied with, Reliance was placed on the observation contained in paragraph 15 of the judgment, but they do not contain any absolute proposition, nor, in our opinion, do the instant cases fall within the mischief of the same. 18. In B.N. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1963 SC 458 the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal arising out of an election petition. The Supreme Court disagreeing with the view of the learned Munsif, i.e., the tribunal, and that of the High Court in appeal, held that the appellants name being in the list of voters he was qualified to be elected as a member of the Panchayat and that his election could not, in the absence of any provision in the Act concerned, be set aside on the ground that his name had been illegally included in the voters' list. 19. In Hafiz Mohammad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 Madhya Pradesh 257 the validity of the election of persons as Councillors of a Municipal Council was challenged by a writ petition, two other similar petitions were filed relating to elections in two other Municipal Councils. One of the grounds of attack was that the Collector had no power to reduce the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 4 (2) of the relevant Rules, which were statutory, for filing claims and objections. One of the grounds of attack was that the Collector had no power to reduce the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 4 (2) of the relevant Rules, which were statutory, for filing claims and objections. This ground was up held, but, even though it was proved that a number of objections had been illegally rejected it was further held that this defect did not strike at the very foundation of the election and no interference on such ground was called for as no effort was made to remedy the defect or grievance before the holding of the elections. It was, however, established that the electoral rolls were finally authenticated and published by the Tahsildar although under the relevant provisions this could be done only by the Collector himself and power could not be delegated in this behalf. In consequence, according to the learned Judges, the electoral rolls were vitiated so as to render the elections based thereon wholly invalid and the petitioners were entitled to relief by way of writ of quo warranto. 20. The last case on the point is Addigiri Venganuni v. Chukhaloopu Narayanappa, AIR 1970 And. Pradesh 337 (FB) Addigiri was declared to have been duly elected to the Municipal Council Dharamvararm from ward No. 7. The defeated candidate Narayanappa filed an Election Petition on several grounds but at the hearing he pressed only one ground that certain voters were under aged on the date of election but their names were fraudulently inserted in the Electoral Roll. He filed an application for the scrutiny of the Ballot papers relating to the 12 alleged under aged persons. This application was opposed but allowed by the Election Tribunal. This order was challenged by Addigiri by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed upon the view that if a person did not complete the age of 21 years when his name was entered in the electoral roll he suffered from a constitutional disability and the very entry of name in the electoral roll was null and vole and was non est. The Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to go into the question whether the voters alleged to be underaged were in fact so and for that purpose to order inspection of ballot papers. The Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to go into the question whether the voters alleged to be underaged were in fact so and for that purpose to order inspection of ballot papers. It may, however, be pointed out that the aforesaid view though not relevant for purposes of the instant cases is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1959 Alld. 357 (FB) and that of the Punjab High Court in Roon Lal v. Dhan Singh, AIR 1968 Pun. and Har. 1 (FB). 21. The above noted cases, in our opinion, do not support the petitioners' contention any better than Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. R.S. Dani (supra). 22. The next point for consideration is what is the meaning of the expression "entertained" occurring in the second proviso to paragraph 8 of the Electoral Rolls Order, 1953. The same expression occurs in the first proviso also. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners in a number of petitions that after the notification dated May 7, 1971 issued by the State Government calling upon all the wards of the various Municipalities, Notified Areas and Town Areas to elect members, no amendments, alterations or modifications could be made in the electoral roll of any ward by addition of new names therein or deletion therefrom of registered names. The consequence of that notification in other wards was the freezing of all electoral rolls on the basis of which only the elections according to the notified programme could be held. The word, it was submitted by the learned counsel for such petitioners, meant "decided" or "adjudicated upon." According to the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the State in some petitions. It only meant "allowed to be filed or instituted" or accepted for consideration. On behalf of a number of the petitioners it was, however, urged that claims and objections could be allowed to be filed but all claims and objections had to be decided and the electoral rolls amended and published accordingly before the ate fixed for filing nomination paper, viz. May 12, 1971. And in same cases it was urged that all this could be done upto the date of taking poll. There was also considerable factual controversy as to whether claims and objections had in fact been adjudicated upon and electoral rolls amended before or after May 7, 1971. May 12, 1971. And in same cases it was urged that all this could be done upto the date of taking poll. There was also considerable factual controversy as to whether claims and objections had in fact been adjudicated upon and electoral rolls amended before or after May 7, 1971. We, therefore, directed the learned Standing Counsel to ascertain in which cases this had been done before and in which cases after the said date and to supply thereafter material information to the court on the point. This having been done it transpired that in a number of cases all the claims and objections had been decided before May 7, 1971, but in certain cases objections and claims were decided thereafter on different dates in some cases before-May 12, 1971 while in others after that date, but all were decided before May 30, 1971 the date fixed for taking poll. The petitions thus get broadly classified into two groups. The cases in which all claims and objections were decided before May 7, 1971 will be treated as falling under the first group and the rest under the second group. The contention noted above can only pertain to the second group of petitions and not the first group. In order to appreciate this contention and some other contentions which will be mentioned later, it is necessary to set out briefly the provisions of the Electoral Rolls Order, 1953. 23. The said order was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sec. 12-H of the Act. It consists of 17 paragraphs. Under Paragraph 3 all expenditure incurred in connection with the preparation and revisions of election roll in a municipality shall except as otherwise provided or directed by the State Government he charged to and be realisable from the Board to the extent and in the manner laid down by the State Government, Paragraph 6 (1) relates to the preparation of the first electoral rolls under the Act for every ward. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that the Director may thereafter direct at any time that a fresh electoral roll be prepared for any ward and such roll is to be prepared in the manner in which the first electoral rolls are to be prepared. Paragraph 7 deals with the mode of publication of the rolls. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that the Director may thereafter direct at any time that a fresh electoral roll be prepared for any ward and such roll is to be prepared in the manner in which the first electoral rolls are to be prepared. Paragraph 7 deals with the mode of publication of the rolls. A copy of the electoral roll is to be posted at the municipal office and by beat of drum it is to be notified in said order was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sec. 12-H of the Act. It consists of 17 paragraphs. Under Paragraph 3 all expenditure incurred in connection with the preparation and revisions of election roll in a municipality shall except as otherwise provided or directed by the State Government he charged to and be realisable from the Board to the extent and in the manner laid down by the State Government, Paragraph 6 (1) relates to the preparation of the first electoral rolls under the Act for every ward. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that the Director may thereafter direct at any time that a fresh electoral roll be prepared for any ward and such roll is to be prepared in the manner in which the first electoral rolls are to be prepared. Paragraph 7 deals with the mode of publication of the rolls. A copy of the electoral roll is to be posted at the municipal office and by beat of drum it is to be notified in the ward that the electoral roll has been published, and that copy thereof can be inspected free of charge at the municipal office during office hours during a period of seven days from the date of publication. Paragraphs, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14-A and 14-B relate to revision of electoral rolls. Paragraph 8 entitles every per-sons falling under any of the classes mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) to apply to the Electoral Registration Officer for the inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of the ward concerned. Paragraph 9 provides for filing objections to the entries in the electoral rolls by any person falling in the categories mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) and to apply for exclusion of his name of for correction of the particulars, as the case may be. Paragraph 9 provides for filing objections to the entries in the electoral rolls by any person falling in the categories mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) and to apply for exclusion of his name of for correction of the particulars, as the case may be. Paragraph 10 prescribes the manner in which claims and objections are to be filed. Paragraph 11 provides that except in cases where the Electoral Registration Officer is prima fades satisfied as to the validity of a claim or objection, every person whose claim or objection is received or his agent presenting the claim or objection and every person to the inclusion of whose name the objection relates shall be served with a notice in the prescribed form specifying the place where and at the time when his claim or objection will be heard and directing him or his agent to be present with such evidence, if any, as he might wish to adduce. In the case of a notice to the person to the inclusion of whose name the objection relates the notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the objection. It also lays down the manner of service of notice. Paragraph 12 relates to hearing and decision of claims and objections. It requires the Electoral Registration Officer to hold a summary enquiry into the claim or objection preferred and to record his decision thereon and to order any addition to or omission from or alteration in the electoral roll in accordance with his decision. It further provides that for the purpose of an enquiry the electoral roll as published under Paragraph 7 shall be presumed to be correct. The decision of the Electoral Registration Officer shall be final. Sub paragraphs (1) and (2) of Paragraph 13 relate to correction and amendments which can be made suo mow by the Electoral Registration Officer in the electoral rolls. The decision of the Electoral Registration Officer shall be final. Sub paragraphs (1) and (2) of Paragraph 13 relate to correction and amendments which can be made suo mow by the Electoral Registration Officer in the electoral rolls. Sub-paragraph (3) (a) provides that the Director may, if he thinks it necessary so to do, for the purposes of general election to a municipality, direct that the list to amendments (addition and corrections) is to be made in the electoral roll for a ward in a municipality shall be prepared and thereupon the Electoral Registration Officer of every ward shall on the basis of material furnished to him by the District Election Officer or on the basis of such other information as may be readily available and in the form prescribed for list of amendments prepared under the Representation of the people Act 1960, prepare the list of amendments which are proposed to be made in the electoral rolls. Clause (b) provides for the publication of the list of amendments as soon as they are ready by making an application for the same available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form S in his office and such other places as may be specified by the Director. Under Clause (c) any person may file on objection to any entry in the said list within 15 days from the date of publication thereof. These objections are to be disposed of in the same manner in which objections are to be disposed of under sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 10 and paragraphs 11 and 12. It also requires publication in the manner prescribed in paragraph 7 of any amendment taking place in the amended electoral roll. Paragraph 15 contains provisions relating to annual revision of the electoral rolls of the wards of a municipality. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 15 provides that the provisions of Paragraphs 7 to 14, shall so far as they may be applicable apply in the case of every revised roll to be prepared or prepared under paragraph 15 in the like manner as they apply in the case of electoral rolls originally prepared under the Act. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 15 provides that the provisions of Paragraphs 7 to 14, shall so far as they may be applicable apply in the case of every revised roll to be prepared or prepared under paragraph 15 in the like manner as they apply in the case of electoral rolls originally prepared under the Act. Sub-paragraph (6) provides that when a list of amendments is prepared for any ward under sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) of Paragraph 15 it shall not be necessary to reprint the entire roll but the list of amendments only need be printed, unless the Director directs the entire roll along with the list of amendments to be printed as a single roll. Under Paragraph 15 the electoral roll for any ward prepared under the provisions of Paragraph 6 shall come into force immediately upon its publication under Paragraph 7 and subject to it the amendments, revision etc. under paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 shall remain in force until another subsequently prepared electoral roll for the ward comes into force. Paragraph 17 contains provisions relating to custody and preservation of the electoral rolls etc. It is not necessary to give a resume of the 1964 Orders because no arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioners based on any infraction or violation of any of the provisions of those Orders. Paragraph 3 of these Orders also contains a provisions which is identical to the provisions contained in paragraph 3 of the 1953 Order, the expenditure, however, being the expenditure incurred in connection with the conduct of election or the carrying into effect of the provisions of the Orders, that is, the 1964 Orders. 24. The two provisos to paragraph 8 of the Electoral Rolls Order are : "Provided that the application under clause (c) above preferred after 14 days from the date of publication of the electoral rolls of the ward under Paragraphs 7 shall except as otherwise directed by the Sanchalak be not entertained unless it is accompanied by a fee of Re. The two provisos to paragraph 8 of the Electoral Rolls Order are : "Provided that the application under clause (c) above preferred after 14 days from the date of publication of the electoral rolls of the ward under Paragraphs 7 shall except as otherwise directed by the Sanchalak be not entertained unless it is accompanied by a fee of Re. 1/- in respect of each entry which shall in no case be refunded and also by an affidavit in support of the claim : Provided further that no claim or objection shall be entertained after notification calling upon the ward to elect a member or, members as the case may be is issued." A reading of the two provisos together would indicate that the second proviso is in the nature of an exception or rider to the first proviso. The use of the word "further" in the second proviso also suggest this. The second proviso expressly prohibited the doing of two acts, viz., the entertaining of any claim or of any objection, after the issue of the particular notification. Paragraph 8 relates only to applications in respect of claims by persons who came under any of the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls of the wards concerned. No time limit is prescribed in the substantive part of paragraph 8 for preferring such an application nor in any other paragraph. The first provision relates to applications under clause (c) only and permits, subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, the entertaining of such application preferred after the expiry of the period of fourteen days from the date of the publication of the electoral roll. Now, is this period of fourteen days the prescribed period of limitation beyond which no application under clauses (a), (b) and (d) can be filed at all and an application only under (c) can be permitted to be preferred or entertained subject to the fulfilment of the requisite conditions ? Or, does it mean, that for preferring applications under clauses other than (c) there is no time limit and they must be entertained whenever filed ? Such an anomalous position could not possibly have been intended by the State Government in making the Order in question. Or, does it mean, that for preferring applications under clauses other than (c) there is no time limit and they must be entertained whenever filed ? Such an anomalous position could not possibly have been intended by the State Government in making the Order in question. Reasonably, therefore, it can be inferred that the period of fourteen days applies to all applications, whether under clause (a) of clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d). In case of applications under clause (c), however, a special provision has been made permitting their entertainment after fourteen days subject to the specified conditions. The word "entertained" cannot in the first proviso mean decided or "adjudicated upon" because paragraph 8 relates to preferring of applications and does not provide for decision or adjudication of claims. The express provisions in that behalf are contained in paragraph 12 which deals with "hearing and decision of claims and objections". In the context in which it occurs, it is difficult to hold that expression "entertained" in the second proviso has a meaning different from the meaning of the same expression in the first proviso. The question. however, is not altogether free from difficulty or ambiguity. The use of the words "no claim" and no objection adds to the difficulty, but, no doubt, lends same support to the contention under consideration. 25. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed in Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu, AIR 1970 SC 1334 . In this case the question was as to the meaning of the expression "entertain" occurring in the proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure added by this Court. It was held that the expression had been rightly interpreted by the High Court as meaning `adjudicate upon' or proceed to consider on merits. The supreme court also referred to and relied on an earlier decision given by it in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax., AIR 1968 SC 488 In the said case the point for consideration was about the meaning of the word "entertained" to be found in the proviso to Sec. 9 of the U.P. Sale Tax Act. Sec. 9 gives a right of appeal against certain Orders. The relevant part of the proviso states "no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by . . . . . . . . Sec. 9 gives a right of appeal against certain Orders. The relevant part of the proviso states "no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by . . . . . . . . . ." It was held that when the proviso speaks of the entertainment of the appeal. It means that the appeal such as was filed will not be admitted to consideration unless there is satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of the admitted tax. 26. The above-noted cases no doubt support the contention that no claim or objection could be entertained, i.e. admitted to consideration or adjudicated upon after May 7, 1971. But it may be noted, the controversy therein related to procedure and not any substantive right. Such right was the right to seek the setting aside of the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 in the first case. and the right to appeal against certain orders under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Here the substantive rights are conferred by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Order for inclusion of names in and exclusion of names from electoral rolls, as the case may be. If the interpretation canvassed by the petitioners were to be accepted it would not be conducive to advancement of justice but would lend to defeat it. It would deprive bona fide claimants and objectors, who had filed their claims or objections well in time the right and opportunity to get their claims and objections decided and to get the names of persons concerned entered in or deleted from the electoral rolls accordingly. The interpretation suggested by the learned Advocate General by and large, will, on the contrary sub-serve the advancement of justice. It is true that a right to put up his candidature by a person qualified for the office or seat concerned in an election is inherent in the election but the basis and by far a much larger right inherent therein is the right of franchise. After all, as compared to candidates or prospective or intending candidates the number of electors must be legion. After all, as compared to candidates or prospective or intending candidates the number of electors must be legion. The interpretation canvassed by the learned Advocate General secures this basic right to a large number of persons who had filed claims to be included as electors in the electoral rolls and also secures in a larger measure deletion there from of names of persons wrongly entered as electors. His contention would also be in consonance with the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. (supra), if the words "no claim or objection shall be entertained" in the second proviso are interpreted to mean no claim or objection shall be admitted to consideration. In any event the two cases of the Supreme Court noted above are clearly distinguishable. It cannot therefore be held that the claims and objections which had been previously filed and admitted to consideration could not be decided or adjudicated upon after May 1, 1971. Nor can the decision thereof after that date be treated as invalidating the elections concerned. Even if it is assumed that the contention of the petitioners, whose petitions come under the second group is correct, they, in our opinion, would not be entitled to the grant of any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter will be dealt with later, generally and also with reference to individual cases. 27. The principal contentions having been considered and disposed of, it now remains to consider some comparatively minor points as also the question of the right of the petitioners to the grant of relief. The Director of Election (local bodies) by order dated 14th April, 1971 under paragraph 15 of the Electoral Rolls had directed the Electoral Registration Officers concerned to publish the electoral rolls as prepared on the basis of the 1971 Assembly rolls on April 19, 1971. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that having regard to the fact that the 1971 Assembly rolls were to be adopted and made the basis of preparation of ward-wise electoral rolls it was necessary in every case to make a general revision of the rolls and no question of making an annual revision of amendment under pant-graph 15 could or did really arise. Having regard to the circumstances under which the impending elections were to be held and in view of the fact that the Assembly rolls had been prepared in 1971 it was in our opinion not necessary to direct the preparation of any fresh rolls or to direct a ward-wise general revision of all the electoral rolls. Under the provisions of the Act, the 1971 Assembly rolls were to be made the basis of the preparation of the ward-wise electoral rolls in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Electoral Rolls Order. It is true that necessary amendments and alterations or corrections in the ward-wise electoral rolls so prepared had to be made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Order, insofar as such provisions were applicable. Whether this was done in any particular case or not and what will be the consequence of any omission or failure to do so will have to be judged with reference to the individual cases, provided that the petitioner or petitioners concerned can be held to be legally entitled to any relief. The order dated April 14, 1971 was made expressly under paragraph 15. It has not been established that no such order could be legally made under that paragraph. There is thus no room for argument that the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Order had necessarily to be complied with. Similarly, the printing of the finally amended rolls could be and had been dispensed with by the Director. Only the lists of amendments were to be printed and this appears to have been done. At least in some cases this was shown to have been done. In any case, these points involve highly controversial question of fact which cannot be properly decided without taking voluminous evidence. This cannot be appropriately or conveniently done in these proceedings, nor do we consider it expedient or advisable to launch upon such wide and extensive enquiries as would virtually result in conversion of these petitions into regular suits entailing adjudication on numerous issues of fact. 28. The question of availability or grant of relief to the petitioners may now be considered. Some of the petitioners have expressly sought relief by way of writ of quo warranto. 28. The question of availability or grant of relief to the petitioners may now be considered. Some of the petitioners have expressly sought relief by way of writ of quo warranto. Others have prayed that writs or orders in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned elections and that by writs, orders or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondents concerned who have been declared successful be required to vacate their respective offices and to desist from functioning as the holders of such offices. It has already been mentioned that the interim stay orders having been vacated all the respondents concerned have taken oaths of office and the Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees concerned have been constituted and are functioning normally. These corporate bodies have not been made parties to these petitions. No evidence or material has been furnished by the petitioners showing that the various Boards and Committees have been constituted and are functioning against the will of the majority of the electorate. The petitions, at any rate most of them, appear to have been filed by or at the instance of defeated or disgruntled candidates or parties. The bona fides of the petitioners in most cases are not free from doubt. Many petitions partake the nature and character of election petitions rather than those of writ petitions. It is true that some of the points raised and canvassed here would not have been available in election petitions under Sec. 19 and 43-B of the Act and the relevant Rules, but in some cases no such points have been taken at all and in certain other cases such points appear to have been raised only to avoid the said provisions. Under Sec. 19 (2) (b), reproduced below, some of the points raised in most of petitions could have been raised provided it was established that the result of the election had been materially affected. "Sec. 19 (2) . The election of any person or a member of a board shall not be questioned- (a) .... Under Sec. 19 (2) (b), reproduced below, some of the points raised in most of petitions could have been raised provided it was established that the result of the election had been materially affected. "Sec. 19 (2) . The election of any person or a member of a board shall not be questioned- (a) .... ; (b) on the ground of any non-compliance with this Act or any rule, or of any mistake in forms required thereby or of any error, irregularity or informality on the part of the Officer or officers charged with carrying out this Act or any rules, unless such non-compliance mistake, error, irregularity or informality has materially affected the result of the election." Indeed in some cases the petitioners have even attempted to show that the results of the particular election or elections have been materially affected. 29. It was, however, urged that the provisions of the Act, such as, Secs. 13-K, 19, 43-B cannot bar the exercise of jurisdiction and power by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of appropriate relief once it is established that gross illegalities were committed in regard to matters essentially connected with and constituting the basic requirements of a valid election. There is no quarrel with this proposition. To our mind, however, the petitioners have not succeeded in proving that any such illegality was committed in the instant cases as would render the impugned elections void or non est. The mere fact that some procedural irregularities or even illegalities might have been committed, and in all probability some had been committed in certain cases would not be sufficient to destroy or wipe out the substratum of the impugned elections. The question which assumes importance, therefore, is whether this Court should in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction strike down the elections under such circumstances. Amongst other relevant considerations, the conduct of the petitioners has to be taken into account in this connection. The question which assumes importance, therefore, is whether this Court should in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction strike down the elections under such circumstances. Amongst other relevant considerations, the conduct of the petitioners has to be taken into account in this connection. They could have approached this Court seeking intervention when the order dated April 14, 1970 was made by the Director of Elections, when the notification dated May 7, 1971 was issued by the State Government, when the date of filing of nomination papers May 12, 1971 expired without decision of pending claims, when objections and claims continued to be taken up for adjudication even after May 7, 1971. They had ample time and opportunity but they did nothing. They could have even made representations to the State Government but did not do so. In the circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve to be granted any discretionary relief, specially when the quashing of the impugned elections is likely to cause serious repercussions and result in dissolution of the constituted and functioning Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees concerned, which are not even parties to these petitions. We may here refer, not inappropriately, to the following extracts from Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition) Vol. II, Article 281 at pages 148, 149 :- "An information in the nature of a quo warranto was not issued, and an injunction in lieu thereof will not be granted, as a matter of course. It is in the discretion of the Court to refuse or grant it according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court would enquire into the conduct and motives of the applicant. When, therefore, the title to a corporate office was in question, the Court, in accordance with the Principles, would not grant leave to a relator to file a quo warranto information as a matter of course simply because a reasonable doubt as to legal validity of the title was shown, but the Court would take into consideration the consequences which would be likely to follow should information be granted, and also all the circumstances of the application. Again, where the circumstances of the application was such as to throw suspicion upon the motives of the relator, the Court would not grant an information the consequences of which might be to dissolve the corporation......" 30. Again, where the circumstances of the application was such as to throw suspicion upon the motives of the relator, the Court would not grant an information the consequences of which might be to dissolve the corporation......" 30. It has also to be considered whether the burden of meeting the expenses of preparation of fresh electoral rolls of the wards and of the conduct of fresh elections should be inflicted on the Boards and Committees concerned. Taking into consideration all the material circumstances, the petitioners, in our opinion, are not entitled to the grant of any discretionary relief. We, however, cannot at the same time help mentioning that, whatever be the reason, these elections which were overdue were not arranged to be held in proper time with the result that they ultimately had to be rushed through in a somewhat hurried manner. Under such circumstances, it is almost certain that many irregularities, and even illegalities of a technical nature must have been committed in the course of revision of the electoral rolls of the wards of the various Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees and Town Area Committees. If we have not probed deeply and extensively into the matter, it is because we were persuaded that this should not be done in the larger interest, of the electorate concerned and that the peace and quiet of the Boards and Committees which have been functioning for several months, should be left undisturbed. 31. We will now briefly advert to the petitions individually. 32. The material facts pertaining to each of the petitions under the first group noted above may now be examined. Petition No. 4195 of 1971 : 33. This was filed on 12-7-1971 by Mukat Lal, who described himself as a resident of Qasba Muradnagar. It was alleged therein that respondents 4 to 8 declared to have been elected from ward Nos. 3 and 4 as members of Muradnagar Notified Area were not validly elected, because the elections in question were held on the basis of a defective electoral roll. It was also alleged that the names of a number of persons residing in an area outside the limits of the Notified Area in question were included in the electoral roll. 3 and 4 as members of Muradnagar Notified Area were not validly elected, because the elections in question were held on the basis of a defective electoral roll. It was also alleged that the names of a number of persons residing in an area outside the limits of the Notified Area in question were included in the electoral roll. These allegations have been denied by the respondents and on a perusal of the petition, the counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavits it is clear that highly disputed questions of fact are involved in the case. A petition could have been easily filed much before the holding of the impugned elections on May 30, 1971 seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the holding of elections on the appointed date. This was not done and no adequate or satisfactory reason for not doing so has been given by the petitioner. In our opinion, for the reasons already stated hereinabove and in the circumstances just noted the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition No. 4187 of 1971 : 34. This was filed by Arjundeo on 8-7-1971 challenging the election of respondents 5 to 28 as members of the Ghaziabad Municipal Board from ward Nos. 1 to 9 on the ground, inter alia, that the elections in question had been held on the basis of electoral rolls which were no electoral rolls in the eye of law. It was further alleged that an election had taken place on June 22, 1971 for the election of the President of the Board concerned in which three candidates contested. The validity of the election for the office of the President was challenged on a ground, inter alia, that it was not held by secret ballot and that it was held in violation of the provisions of Sec. 43 of the Act. Strangely enough, out of the three candidates for Presidentship the petitioner impleaded only two, namely, Dinesh Chandra Garg and Hari Shanker as respondent Nos. 29 and 30 respectively but did not implead the third candidate, namely, Prem Mohan. The petitioner pleaded that he was not a candidate for Presidentship nor was a member of the Board and, therefore, was not entitled to file an election petition under Sec. 43-B of the Act. 29 and 30 respectively but did not implead the third candidate, namely, Prem Mohan. The petitioner pleaded that he was not a candidate for Presidentship nor was a member of the Board and, therefore, was not entitled to file an election petition under Sec. 43-B of the Act. The petitioner, however, did not specifically state anywhere in the petition that he was an elector and had exercised his rights as such in the election for elected members of the Board. The petitioner could have approached this Court much earlier seeking to prevent the holding of the election in question. He did not do so, and no explanation was forthcoming from him as to why he allowed the elections to be held without any challenge. For the reasons already herein stated above and in view of the conduct of the petitioner this petition, in our opinion, deserves to be dismissed. Petition No. 4023 of 1971 : 35. This petition was filed by Lalloo and 9 other persons on 21-7-1961. Petitioner No. 1 Lalloo was himself a candidate from ward No. 9 for the office-of member of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. The remaining petitioners were alleged to be electors from the same ward. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 were declared to have been elected as members of the Board from ward No. 9. The petitioners challenged the validity of the election of the said respondents only and sought the quashing of the election of those respondents only, although they impleaded respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10, who were declared as elected members from ward No. 3. The petitioners also impleaded Suresh Chandra as respondent No. 4, who like Lalloo, petitioner No. 1, was also a defeated candidate from ward No. 9. Presumably no relief could have been sought qua respondent No. 4 but although in the petition and in the grounds mentioned therein the validity of the election of respondents 8, 9 and 10 from ward No. 3 was questioned, no relief against them was sought. Petitioner No. 1 himself participated in the elections which he is now seeking to challenge and petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 who have joined him presumably were the supporters of petitioner No. 1. There was no difficulty in the way of petitioner No. 1, in any event, from filing an election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 himself participated in the elections which he is now seeking to challenge and petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 who have joined him presumably were the supporters of petitioner No. 1. There was no difficulty in the way of petitioner No. 1, in any event, from filing an election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners, in our opinion, are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. Petition No. 4127 of 1971 : 36. This petition was filed on 6-7-1971 by Shabbir and seven other electors of ward Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 and 9 of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad challenging the election of respondent Nos. 5 to 28 as members of the Board and the nomination of respondent Nos. 5, 29 and 30 as candidates for the office of the President thereof. Besides raising the points already referred to and considered herein above, the petitioners alleged that the names of quite a large number of persons residing outside the territorial limits of the Municipality were also included in the electoral rolls. This allegation was denied by the respondents. A number of other averments made by the petitioners were also denied. The petition involves disputed issues of fact which cannot be conveniently or properly decided in writ proceedings. The petitioners could have but did not approach this Court before the holding of the impugned elections. They did not challenge the election of the President which was held on 22-6-1971. In our opinion, no case has been made out for grant of any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition also deserves to be dismissed like petition nos. 4187 of 1971 and 4023 of 1971 relating to elections in respect of the same Board. Petition No. 4185 of 1971 : 37. It was filed on 9-7-1971 by Atma Ram, an elector in ward no. 4 of Vikasnagar Municipal Board challenging the election of respondents 3 and 4 from his ward as members and of respondent no.4 as President of the Board. The electoral rolls were challenged as being illegal and defective. In the electoral roll of ward no. 4 the names of 110 persons as electors were alleged to have been illegally included although the said persons were not residents of that ward and were also otherwise disqualified. The electoral rolls were challenged as being illegal and defective. In the electoral roll of ward no. 4 the names of 110 persons as electors were alleged to have been illegally included although the said persons were not residents of that ward and were also otherwise disqualified. The election of the President was challenged on the ground that out of the three persons illegally declared as members from ward no. 4 two were candidates for the said office and that all of them had voted in the election of the President. This petition also involves disputed questions of fact and suffers from similar infirmities as the above noted ones. It deserves the same fate. Petition No. 4052 of 1971 38. This petition was filed on 25-6-197I by Mewa Lal and two other persons who are electors in ward Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively of Municipal Board, Mungra Badshahpur. They have questioned validity of the election of respondent nos. 4 to 9 as members and of respondent no. 10 as the President of the Board. The validity of the electoral rolls has been challenged on legal grounds already noted herein-above and also on the grounds that many names of minors and non-residents were included therein and that a large number of persons were registered as elector in more than one ward. These allegations have been denied thereby raising disputed questions of fact which cannot be appropriately decided in these proceedings. The petitioners who have described themselves as `social workers' interested in the administration of the municipality allowed the impugned elections to be held without any effort to stop or postpone the holding of the same. No case for grant of any discretion has been made out. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Petition No. 3981 of 1971: 39. Saadat Husain and four other persons filed this petition on 18-6-1971 questioning the validity of the election of the respondents 5 to 36 who were declared to have been elected as members of the Rampur Municipal Board from the different wards of the Municipality numbering 14. All the petitioners unsuccessfully contested at the election. Petition No. 3981 of 1971: 39. Saadat Husain and four other persons filed this petition on 18-6-1971 questioning the validity of the election of the respondents 5 to 36 who were declared to have been elected as members of the Rampur Municipal Board from the different wards of the Municipality numbering 14. All the petitioners unsuccessfully contested at the election. They raised legal grounds based on omission to make fresh delimitation of wards and alleged inherently defective electoral rolls, they also alleged that a large number of persons residing outside the territorial limits of the Municipality were made electors by illegal inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls and the names of many persons entitled to be electors were not included therein and the names of dead persons and other disqualified were not excluded. These allegations were denied by the respondents and the disputed questions of fact raised cannot be appropriately decided in these proceedings. The petitioners have not made out any case for granting any relief to them under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition No. 3974 of 1971 : 40. It was filed on 17-6-1971 by Shafiq Ahmed and four other persons who are electors in ward nos. 11 and 12 of the Saharanpur Municipality known as the City Board, Saharanpur. Petitioner no. 1 was alleged to be a prospective candidate for the office of President of the Board. Petitioners 2 and 4 were candidates who lost in the election of members. By the petition the validity of the election of respondent nos. 7 to 23 has been questioned on the ground that the election was held on the basis of invalid electoral rolls. The petition involves determination of many disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently or properly decided in these proceedings. The petitioners participated in the elections which they seek to denounce and repudiate. They are not entitled to any discretionary relief. Petition No. 3987 of 1971. 41. Ram Phal and Babu Ram filed this petition on 17-6-1971 for quashing the election of respondents 4 to 6 who were declared to have been elected as members of the Hapur Municipal Board from ward no. 1 of the Municipality. The only ground of attack is that a certain area lying beyond the limits of the Municipality was illegally included in ward no. 1 of the Municipality. The only ground of attack is that a certain area lying beyond the limits of the Municipality was illegally included in ward no. 1 and the names of the residents thereof were included in the electoral roll for that ward. This invalidated the said electoral roll. These allegations have been denied. A disputed question of fact thus arises which cannot be appropriately decided in these proceedings. No relief can or should be granted to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution. 42. The second group of cases may now be considered individually. Petition No. 4025 of 1971 : 43. This petition was filed on 29-5-1971 by Sat Narain Gupta and Afzalullah challenging the validity of the election of respondents 6 to 23 as members of the Municipal Board, Azamgarh at the elections held on May 30, 1971. The election of respondent No. 24 of the office of the President of the Board was also challenged on the ground that his name for Presidentship was proposed by respondent no. 22 and Secondly by another person who had not been themselves elected as members of the Board validly. It may here be mentioned that respondent no. 24 was declared to be elected as a President on 18-6-1971, because all the other candidates withdrew from the contest. This petition raises, inter alia highly disputed questions of fact. The petitioners could have approached this Court for stopping the holding of the impugned elections at any rate the election of the members but they did not do so for reasons best known to them. The petitioners, in our opinion, are not entitled to any relief and this petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated here in above and for the reasons just mentioned. Petition No. 4188 of 1971 : 44. By this petition filed on 9-7-1971 Mahadeo Prasad and Gur Charan Singh have challenged the elections in which respondent nos. 6 to 22 were elected as members and respondent no. 5 as the President of the Nawabganj Municipal Board, Barabanki. They filed applications for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls of two wards and as their names were not included in the rolls concerned by May 12, 1971 they were deprived of their rights to file their nomination papers as candidates for the election of members. 5 as the President of the Nawabganj Municipal Board, Barabanki. They filed applications for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls of two wards and as their names were not included in the rolls concerned by May 12, 1971 they were deprived of their rights to file their nomination papers as candidates for the election of members. They have pleaded that various illegalities and irregularities were committed in preparing the electoral rolls rendering the elections held on the basis thereof invalid, and that since the members were not validly elected the election of the President by them was also invalid. The respondents have denied most of the averments of fact in regard to illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of the rolls. No findings in respect of disputed facts can be properly given without recording evidence which cannot be conveniently done in these proceedings. The petitioners having allowed the elections to be held without making any effort to prevent or postpone the holding of the same cannot be granted any discretionary relief even though they might not have been able to file their nomination papers due to inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls after 12-5-1971. Petition No. 4008 of 1971 : 45. It was filed on 18-6-1971 by Sheo Pujan who was himself a candidate in the election for members from ward no. 1 of the Gaura Barhoj Municipality, Deoria. He was unsuccessful. The allegations made by him are directed against respondent no. 19 in particular who was also a candidate from the same ward, although some vague allegations of a general nature have also been made in regard to the plea that the electoral rolls on the basis of which the election of members of the Board were held were invalid. The allegation that shyam Sunder, respondent no. 19 was in arrears of municipal taxes is admitted. The petitioner, however, did not object to the nomination of Shyam Sunder as a candidate and allowed him to contest at that polls. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was to file an election petition against the successful candidate who is not Shyam Sunder but Bangali, respondent no. 3. No case for grant of any relief, has been made out by him. Petition No. 4312 of 1971 : 46. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was to file an election petition against the successful candidate who is not Shyam Sunder but Bangali, respondent no. 3. No case for grant of any relief, has been made out by him. Petition No. 4312 of 1971 : 46. The petitioner Gorakh filed this petition on 16-7-1971 seeking to challenge the validity of the election of respondents 6 to 21 as members of the Gaura Barhoj Municipal Board, Deoria and of the candidature of respondents 3 to 5 who contested for the office of the President at the election held on 22-6-1971 to elect the President. He contested unsuccessfully from one of the wards of the Municipality. The validity of the elections has been questioned on the ground that electoral rolls were not prepared in accordance with law and the names of many persons who were minors or non-residents were included therein. The rolls also included fictitious names. Disqualified persons were also alleged to have participated in the elections as electors. Most of the above allegations have been denied. The disputed questions of fact which have arisen cannot be properly or conveniently decided in these proceedings. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of any discretionary relief. Writ Petition No. 3973 of 1971 : 47. Asharfi Lal and Virendra Kumar have by this petition filed on 21-6-1971 challenged the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as members of the Municipal Board, Farukhabad from ward no. 1. The petitioners themselves are defeated candidates from ward nos. 1 and 3. It has inter alia been alleged that although petitioner no. 1 had received majority of the valid votes in ward no. 1 respondent no. 4 was illegally declared elected and that respondent no 5 was declared from ward no. 3 even though he being below 21 years in age was a disqualified person. Although some other vague allegations have been made by the petitioners in regard to the it validity of the electoral rolls, they have not questioned the legality of the election of the other members of the Board. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was by way of election petition. They are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 4267 of 1971 : 48. Malik Sabir Raja and three other person filed this petition on 15-7-1971 questioning the right of respondent nos. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was by way of election petition. They are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 4267 of 1971 : 48. Malik Sabir Raja and three other person filed this petition on 15-7-1971 questioning the right of respondent nos. 6 to 21 to hold office as elected members and of respondent no. 22 as the elected President of Municipal Board, Ramnagar. The petitioners are electors and out of them petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are defeated candidates who had contested for the office of members. They have alleged that various illegalities and irregularities were committed in the preparation of the electoral rolls and that no election could have been validly held on the basis of such rolls or without a fresh delimitation of the wards. These contention cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated herein above. They have also pleaded a number of facts and made allegations of a serious nature which having been denied an elaborate enquiry would be necessary to record findings thereon. This cannot appropriately or conveniently be done in these proceedings. Besides, the petitioners did nothing to prevent the election being held even though, according to them, illegalities had been and were being committed in the matter of the preparation of the electoral rolls and even though no fresh deliminanation had been ordered. On the contrary, they participated in the elections and two of them even contested as candidates. The petitioners do not deserve any relief in these proceedings. Petition No. 3808 of 1971 : 49. This petition was filed on 24-6-1971 by Amrit Lal and three other persons challenging the validity of the election of members and of the President of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, Petitioners, other than petitioner no. 1 are defeated candidates. Petitioners, nos. 2 and 3 contested for the office of members, while petitioners no. 4 for the office of the President. They have alleged various illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and have contended that no valid election could be held without fresh delimitation or on the basis of the illegal electoral rolls. These contentions cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated herein above. 4 for the office of the President. They have alleged various illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and have contended that no valid election could be held without fresh delimitation or on the basis of the illegal electoral rolls. These contentions cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated herein above. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief in view also of their conduct in allowing the elections to be held without making any effort to stop or postpone them and in actually participating therein. Petition No. 3705 of 1971 : 50. Faiyaz Ahmed and Samshuddin Khan, electors in the Robertaganj Town Area filed this petitions on 11-6-1971 challenging the validity of the election of respondent no. 3 as the Chairman and of respondents 4 to 12 as members of the Town Area. They have alleged that electoral rolls were amended and new names were included therein after 12-5-1971 which was the date fixed for filing of lamination papers both for the office of members and of the Chairman. This could not be legally done, and, at any rate. within six days immediately preceding the date of poll. They have also alleged that the names of about 150 persons who were entitled to and had applied for inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls were not included therein. Petitioner no. 2 had filed his nomination paper as a candidate for the office of the Chairman but withdrew his candidature by 17-5-1971, the date fixed in that behalf. It has been alleged that he withdrew from the contest as the names of the aforesaid 150 persons were not included in the electoral roll by that date. This appears to be an after the thought. The petitioners took no steps to stop or postpone the holding of the elections. Most of the allegations made by the petitioners in regard to illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls have been denied by the respondents. Disputed questions of fact thus have arisen which cannot be appropriately or conveniently decided in these proceedings. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for a granting to them any discretionary relief. Writ Petition No. 3951 of 1971 : 51. Disputed questions of fact thus have arisen which cannot be appropriately or conveniently decided in these proceedings. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for a granting to them any discretionary relief. Writ Petition No. 3951 of 1971 : 51. This petition was filed on 21-6-1971 questioning the validity of the election of respondents 3 to 17 as members of the Sirsaganj Municipal Board and of the proceeding for the election of the President for which polling was to take place on 22-6-1971. The petitioner Satish Chandra Jain alleged that in March, 1970 he was elected President of the Board and was continuing as such. His principal contention is that certain additional neighbouring areas lying outside the Municipal limits were proposed to be included in the Municipality by a resolution of the Boat dated 12-12-1965 and, although no notification had been made by the State Government implementing the same, the residents of those areas were also included in the electoral rolls as electors illegally. Such persons, large in number, had cast their votes at the polls for the election of members on 30-5-1971. This vitiated the election as a whole and the members not having been validly elected had no right to elect the President. 52. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U.P., respondent No. 1, it has been admitted that no notification for the inclusion of the areas mentioned in the aforesaid resolution of the Board had been issued. It has, however, not been admitted that residents of such areas were included in the electoral lists. It has further been stated that the electoral rolls were intensively revised in 1965 according to the Mohallas specified in the Delimitation Order, 1964 pertaining to the Board and that in the impugned electoral rolls the names of residents of one or two more new houses bearing municipal numbers were only included. It has also been stated that the Board itself had extended civic amenities to the areas in question and had also been realising taxes from the residents thereof, as admitted by the petitioner himself. It has further been stated that no objection was filed by the petitioner or any other person against the in elusion of names of the residents of such are as in the rolls. Such other claims and objections as were filed were decided on 8-5-1971. It has further been stated that no objection was filed by the petitioner or any other person against the in elusion of names of the residents of such are as in the rolls. Such other claims and objections as were filed were decided on 8-5-1971. The petitioner was not a candidate either for the office of member of the President. No election petition was filed against any member declared elected. 53. Even if there was some illegality in the preparation of the electoral rolls, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief. He appears to have idly stood by when the rolls were being prepared and thereafter also right upto 21-6-1971. He approached this Court much after respondents 3 to 17 had been declared elected members of the Board and only a clay before the polls for the election of the President. The petition also does not appear to be a bona fide one. By the impugned elections and the constitution of the new Board he was displaced from the office of the President and, it may be, the petitioner wants to stage a comeback. No case for grant of any relief has been made out. Petition No. 3976 of 1971 : 54. Hira Pandey and 9 other persons filed this petition on 18-6-1971. Their main grievance is that although they are all qualified electors of Ballia Municipality their names were not to be found in the electoral rolls. They therefore filed claims for the inclusion of their names in the rolls of their respective wards within the time allowed but the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Ballia, respondent No. 1 did not deliberately pass orders on their claim-applications, due to political influence, until after the expiry of the date for filing nomination paper, viz. 12-5-1971. All of them wanted to contest at the elections as candidates from their own wards but they were denied their right to put up their candidature by the said officer who allowed the claims of Raghunath, Alakh Deo and Ram Shanker, although similarly placed on or before 12-5-1971. Certain other allegations have been made against the said officer in regard to preparation of the electoral rolls. It was said he had included Many fictitious names in the rolls of ward No. 1. 55. Certain other allegations have been made against the said officer in regard to preparation of the electoral rolls. It was said he had included Many fictitious names in the rolls of ward No. 1. 55. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 it has been dented that he acted under any political influence or pressure. It has also been stated that about 3,000 claims and objections were filed which could be and had been disposed of after enquiry, and that the cases of those persons who bad intimated to him that they were intending candidates were decided by 12-5-1971. The petitioners did not give any such intimation nor approached him for the decision of their claims by the date. It has been denied that any fictitious entry was made in the rolls. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners have asserted that they did approach respondent No. 1 several days before 12-5-1971. In the petition no such averment was made. No written intimation was given to respondent No. 1 nor was any written application made by any of the petitioners. It is difficult to believe the allegations made by the petitioners. The petitioners did nothing to prevent the holding of the elections even though they had been, according to them, due to manipulations and favouritism on the part of respondent No. 1 prevented from filing their nomination papers on 12-5-1971. In our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief. Petition No. 4095 of 1971 : 56. This petition was filed on 5-7-1971 by Kishan Lal. He himself was a candidate from ward No. 2 of the Mussoorie Municipality. He was outvoted by 16 votes by his rival candidate, respondent No. 5. He has prayed inter alia for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent nos. 3 to 5, although, according to him, the entire election of members of the Board in question numbering 11 was vitiated due to defects in the preparation of electoral rolls. In the petition, there is even no averment that respondents 3 and 4, and for that matter respondent No. 5 as well, had been declared elected members. Having unsuccessfully contested in the elections which he has subsequently sought to challenge, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. His remedy, if any, was to file an election petition. Petition No. 3806 of 1971 : 57. Having unsuccessfully contested in the elections which he has subsequently sought to challenge, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. His remedy, if any, was to file an election petition. Petition No. 3806 of 1971 : 57. By this petition filed on 18-6-1971, the petitioner Panna Lal, a resident of ward No. 4 of Deoria Municipality prayed for the quashing of the elections of members held on 30-5-1971 and the stopping of the election of the Chairman which was due to be held on 22-6-1971. Petitioner's grievance is that he and wife and many other. residents had made applications for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls of their wards, but their names not having been included therein upto 30-5-1971 they were denied their valuable right to vote. The petitioner has alleged that in consequence of his name not having been included in the rolls, he could not put up his own candidature both for the office of member and the Chairman. He, however, has given no reason why he did not take any steps to prevent or postpone the holding of the elections on 30-5-1971. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate, Deoria, it appears that petitioner's name was included in the rolls on 31-5-1971. Why this could not be done earlier has also been explained. The date for filing nomination paper as candidate for the office of the Chairman was 14-6-1971. The petitioner, therefore, could at any rate file his nomination paper for that office. He did not do so. The other persons whose names are alleged to have been not included or were included after 30-5-1971 in the electoral rolls have not come forward to make any grievance about it. No case for grant of any discretionary relief has been made out by the petitioner. Petition No. 4096 of 1971 : 58. Ram Sanehi and Sri Ram filed this petition on 5-7-1971. They have questioned the validity of the elections held on 30-5-1971 to elect members of the Lakhimpur Kheri Municipal Board. They have not challenged the election held on 22-6-1971 to elect the President of the Board. Petitioner No. 2 is a defeated candidate. He had contested from ward No. 3. It has been alleged that he was defeated due to the illegal inclusion of the names of 3257 new voters. They have not challenged the election held on 22-6-1971 to elect the President of the Board. Petitioner No. 2 is a defeated candidate. He had contested from ward No. 3. It has been alleged that he was defeated due to the illegal inclusion of the names of 3257 new voters. This has been denied in the counter affidavit and it has been stated that only 525 new names were included. Petitioner No. 2 had secured 187 votes as against 463 and 432 votes secured by the successful candidate from ward No. 3. Whether the alleged illegal inclusion of new names in any ward materially affected the result of the election could be appropriately decided in an election petition only and not in writ proceedings because it would require adduction of considerable evidence as to the number of such electors who voted and for whom. 59. Petitioner No. 1 alleged that he had made a claim for the inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of ward No. 3 as he had decided to put up his candidature for membership from that ward. His name not having been included therein, by 12-5-1971 he was denied the right to file his nomination paper and to seek election as member. His name was included on 25-5-1971. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the claim of petitioner. No. 1 was allowed on 4-5-1971 and the list of claims allowed was put up in the notice board from day to day. Thus there was no obstacle in the way of petitioner No. 1 to file his nomination paper on 12-5-1971. The petitioner No. 1, if he was a prospective candidate, ought to have been vigilant. He is not entitled to any discretionary relief. Petition No. 4034 of 1971 : 60. This petition was filed on 21-6-1971 by Rajendra Singh and 12 other residents of Qasba Mau Nath Bhanjan, Azamgarh. They challenged the election of respondents 6 to 25 who were declared elected as members of the Mau Nath Bhanjan Municipal Board on 31-5-1971. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are defeated candidates. petitioner nos. 6 to 8 had applied for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls but their claims and those of many other persons were rejected in violation of paragraph 11 of the Electoral Rolls Order 1953 and the principles of natural justice. Petitioner Nos. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are defeated candidates. petitioner nos. 6 to 8 had applied for the inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls but their claims and those of many other persons were rejected in violation of paragraph 11 of the Electoral Rolls Order 1953 and the principles of natural justice. Petitioner Nos. 9 to 13 are electors and their names stood registered in the electoral rolls of their respective wards. The petitioners had prayed that the election due to be held on 22-6-1971 for the election of the President be stopped. The interim order issued by the Court not to declare the result of the election of the President was subsequently vacated but no application thereafter appears to have been made by the petitioners to implead the perm declared elected as president. 61. Various illegalities and irregularities have been alleged by the petitioners. Many allegations made by the petitioners have been denied in the counter affidavit. This has given rise to controversial issue; of fact which cannot be appropriately or conveniently decided in these proceedings. It has been alleged that petitioner No. 8 did not file any application for the inclusion of his name in the rolls and the claim of petitioner No. 6 was rejected on the ground that he was not found to be an ordinary resident and that of petitioner No. 7 as he has found to be below 21 years in age on 1-1-1971, the qualifying date. 62. The petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief. Petitioners 1 to 6 themselves contested the elections and having been defeated have sought to question their validity. Petitioners 6 to 8 appear to be persons who prima facie do not have any locus standi. Their right or claim depends on determination of disputed, questions of fact. Petitioners 9 to 13 also appear to have participated in the impugned elections as elactors. The elections were allowed to be held without any serious objection or effort to stop or postpone the holding of the same. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Petition No. 4186 of 1971 : 63. Raj Kumar and two other persons filed this petition on 9-7-1971, although it is dated 25th June, 1971, praying that a writ of quo warranto be issued requiring respondent nos. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Petition No. 4186 of 1971 : 63. Raj Kumar and two other persons filed this petition on 9-7-1971, although it is dated 25th June, 1971, praying that a writ of quo warranto be issued requiring respondent nos. 5 to 19 to show by what authority they purport to function as members of the Municipal Board, Pilkhana, Petitioner No. 1 (Raj Kumar) was a candidate and was elected a member of the Board. He was a candidate for Presidentship but was defeated by respondent No. 6 (Nand Kishore). Petitioner No. 2 was an intending candidate for membership but could not file his nomination paper as he found on May 12, 1971 that the names of the two persons who were his proposer and seconder had been wrongly removed from the electoral roll on the objection of some body. All the claims and objections were decided, according to the information supplied to us by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, by May 11, 1971. The petition manifestly is not a bona fide one. It appears to have been filed only because petitioner No. 1 who successfully contested for the office of a member failed to succeed at the election of the President. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for the grant of any relief. 64. In the result all the petitions are dismissed and the respective parties are ordered to bear their own costs in every case.