Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 12 of 1966. Case: Laisram Thanil Singh Vs District Magistrate , Manipur and others.
Case Number | Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 12 of 1966 |
Counsel | For Petitioner: M.K. Manisana Singh, Adv. and For Respondent: N. Ibotombi Singh, Govt. Advocate |
Judges | Rajvi Roop Singh, J.C. |
Issue | Assam Municipal Act (15 of 1957) - Sections 26(1), 26(4), 12, 30 |
Citation | AIR 1967 Manipur 6 |
Judgement Date | July 30, 1966 |
Order:
-
Shri L. Thanil Singh has filed the writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and Ss. 14 and 16 of the Assam Municipal Act, and Rules 19 and 22 of the Rules of Manipur Election of Commissioners of Municipal Board for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature quashing the Annexure "C" and other proceedings relating to the Election in question.
-
The facts are not in dispute. Briefly they may be put thus:
The Assam Municipal Act, 1956 was extended to Manipur in the year 1960. After the extension of the Act, the election was held in the year, 1962. The 4 years tenure of the Office of the Commissioners expired on 31-3-66, therefore, the Chief Commissioner by exercising his power under S. 26 (4) of the Act extended the term of the existing Commissioners of the Imphal Municipal Board by an order dated 30-3-66 for a further period of 3 months. This term expired on 30-6-66. The Chief Commissioner again extended the term of the Commissioners for a further period upto 31st July, 1966 by an order dated 1-7-1966.
But before the extension of the term by the Chief Commissioner, the District Magistrate of Manipur on 30-6-66 made a notification acting under Rule 19 of the Rules for the Manipur Election of Commissioners of Municipal Board Rules making programme of Imphal Municipal Election 1966. On the issue of this notification, the petitioner who is the resident of Ward No. 12 and carries on his business at Paona Bazar in Ward No. 20, presented the nomination paper for the Ward No. 12 as a Congress candidate. The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on 8-7-66 by the District Magistrate. The petitioner, therefore, filed the writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus for quashing the illegal orders of Chief Commissioner and the District Magistrate.
-
The respondents filed the reply on 27-7-66 denying all the allegations of the petitioner. In the reply it was stated that the Chief Commissioner and the District Magistrate issued the notifications in accordance with the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, and rules framed thereunder. They did not exercise their authority in excess of their respective jurisdiction under the Act or the rules framed thereunder. It was also stated that the term of the Office of the Commissioner was due to expire on 17-4-66, but by notification Annexure A the Chief Commissioner extended the term of the Officer of the Commissioners for a period of 3 months with effect from the mid-night of 17th/18th April, 1966. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner by notification Annexure B extended the term of the Office of the Commissioners, Municipal Board of Imphal upto 31st July, 1966, in accordance with provisions of sub-section (4) of section 26 of the said Act. In view of these facts, the notifications should be treated as legal and valid.
The respondents in the alternative also pleaded that if for the sake of arguments it be taken that the term of the Office of the Imphal Municipal Board expired on 30-6-66, after the extension of its term by Annexure A, the subsequent notification Annexure B became operative with effect from mid-night of 30th June/1st July, 1966, therefore, the term of the existing Municipal Board of Imphal existed upto 31st July, and since election was to be held within 3 months of the expiry of the term of the Office of the Commissioners, the notifications are in accordance with the said Act, and hence they are legal and valid.
The respondents also pleaded that the petitioner has got another remedy, therefore, he has no right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents at great length and perused the record of the case.
-
The learned lawyers while arguing the writ petition argued only on the points which were left undecided by me while deciding the stay petition.
-
In this case the first point for consideration is whether the term of the Board expired on 30-6-66 or 17-7-66.
-
According to the learned lawyer for the petitioner the term of the Board expired on 30-6-66 and the notification B was issued after the expiration of the term of the Board, and according to the Government Advocate, the term of the Board expired on 17-7-66 and the notification was issued before the expiry of the term of the Commissioners. Now I shall determine this point in the light of the arguments advanced by the lawyers.
-
The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments referred to sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) of Section 26 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. The sub-section (1) runs as follows:
26(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all the elected and appointed Commissioners shall hold Office for four years commencing from the date of the first meeting of the newly constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial