Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2030 (ALL)

Mansur Ahmad v. Vijay Bahadur

2024-09-09

NEERAJ TIWARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Neeraj Tiwari, J. 1. Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Ten Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. to set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed in Case No. 2 of 2023 and remand back the matter to Ld. Court concerned to pass a fresh and appropriate order." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Election Petition no. 2 of 2023 has been filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the election of petitioner as Chairman/Pesident of Nagar Palika Parishad, Chunar, Mirzapur under Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916(hereinafter, referred to as, 'Act, 1916'). He next submitted that petitioner has filed objection dated 10.06.2023 on the ground that election of President may not be challenged under Section 19 of the Act, 1916 as it belongs to election of members, therefore Election Petition no. 2 of 2023 may be dismissed as not maintainable. He next submitted that objection of petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.07.2024. He further submitted that Section 19 of the Act, 1916 provides for election dispute of members only and petition relating to the election of President is not maintainable under the said provision of law, therefore, impugned order dated 16.07.2024 is bad and liable to be set aside. 4. Sri S.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ten Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Section 43 of the Act, 1916 itself provides that provisions for election to the post of a member shall mutatis mutandis apply to the election for the post of President, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused provisions of law. 6. Section 19 of the Act, 1916 pertains to power to question the municipal election by petition. The same is being quoted hereinbelow: "19. Power to question municipal election by petition. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused provisions of law. 6. Section 19 of the Act, 1916 pertains to power to question the municipal election by petition. The same is being quoted hereinbelow: "19. Power to question municipal election by petition. -(1) The election of any person as a member of a [Municipality] may be questioned by an election petition on the ground, - (a) that such person committed during or in respect of the election proceedings a corrupt practice as defined in Section 28; (b) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes, or any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes; (c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected. (2) The election of any person as a member of a [Municipality] shall not be questioned, - (a) on the ground that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from, or the name of any person not qualified to vote has been inserted in the electoral roll or rolls; [(b)] on the ground of any non-compliance with this Act or any rule, or of any mistake in the 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." 7. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it shows that it is for dispute of election of members. 8. Section 43 of the Act, 1916 pertains to election of President. Same is being quoted hereinbelow: "43. Election of President. -(1) The President of the municipality shall be elected on the basis of adult suffrage by the electors in the municipal area. (2) An outgoing President shall be eligible for re-election. (3) The provision of this Act and the rules framed thereunder in relation to election (including disputes relating to election and electoral offences) of a member shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to election of the President. (2) An outgoing President shall be eligible for re-election. (3) The provision of this Act and the rules framed thereunder in relation to election (including disputes relating to election and electoral offences) of a member shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to election of the President. (4) If in a general election a person is elected both as member and President of the municipality or being a member of the municipality is elected President thereof in any bye-election, he shall, except as provided in Section 49, cease to be a member from the date of his election as President.]" 9. From the perusal of Section 43(3) of the Act, 1916, it again shows that Act and the rules framed thereunder in relation to election including disputes relating to election and electoral offences of a member shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to election of the President, meaning thereby that provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1916, so far as it pertains to election dispute shall also be applicable in the election dispute of President. 10. Therefore, in light of Section 19 and 43 of the Act, 1916, this Court holds that provision of Section 19, so far as it relates to election dispute shall also be applicable for the dispute of election and electoral offences of President. Therefore, I found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. 11. Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.