# CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER v. RADHEY SHYAM DANI

- **Citation:** [1957] 1 S.C.R. 68
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-08-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1956
- **Bench:** S. R. Das C.J
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-commissioner-ajmer-v-radhey-shyam-dani-1364
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAJ!.,
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.)
Municipal Election-Electorar roll-Election
Rules-No provision for revision of electoral roll and for adjudi'cation of claimsValidity
of
the
electoral
roll-Ajmer-Merwara
Municipalities
Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925), ss. 30 (2), 43-Apner State Municipalities Election Rules,.1955, r. 7.
Sub-section (2) of s. 30 of the Ajmcr-Merwara
Municipalities
Regulation, 1925, as amended, provided that "every person who
would be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950
(XLIII of 1950) to be registered in the electoral roll for a parliamentary Constituency if that Constituency had been co-ext:cnsivc·
with the Municipality, and whose name is registered in the electoral
roll for the
Parliamentary
Constituency
comprising the Munici·
pality, shall
be entitled to be
enrolled as an elector
of
the
Municipality"; and s. 43 enabled the _Chief Commissioner to make
rules consistent with the
Regulation
for the preparation
and
revision of electoral rolls and the adjudication of claims to be
enrolled and objections to enrolment.
In exercise of this power the appellant framed
Rules which,
inter alia, provided that the electoral roll for the particular Municipality shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary
Constituency
representing
the
area
covered
by
the
Municipality.
He
notified
an
election
programme
and
also
authenticated and published an electoral roll on August 8, 19'i5.
The respondent whose father's name was recited wrongly in the
electoral roll applied for rectification of the mistake in the Parlia...
mentary Electoral Roll, on August 10, 1955, but it was rejected on
the ground that the roll of the Municipal elections had been finally
published on August 8, 1955, and therefore no correction -could be
made.
The respondent challenged the validity of the notification
and the electoral roll.
Held, that under s. 30 (2) of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities
Regulation, 1925, the
electoral roll
for the Parliamentary cons-
!jtucncy was• only treated as the basis for the electoral roll of the
Municipality and that the rules in so far as they made no provision
for the revision of the electoral roll, fQr the adjudication of claims
to be included therein or for entertaining
objections
to
such
inclusion, were defective and,. therefore, the
electoral roll of the
Ajmer Municipality which was authenticated and published by the
appellant on August 8, 1955, was not in conformity with the
provisions of " 30 (2) and the relevant provisions of the Rcgulatioo
-
/
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(f)
and could not form the basis of any valid dections to be held to
the Ajmer Municipal Committee.
C1V1L
APPELLATE
JurusmCTioN:
Civil
Appeal
No. 181 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated September 5, 1955, of the Judicial Commissioner's
Court, Ajmer, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1-08 of 1955.
M. M. Kaul and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
1956. November 15.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal with special leave
from the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer,
restraining the District Magistrate, Ajmer, from holding
the elections imd poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9, 1955.
The respondent claimed to be a voter of the Ajmcr
Municipality.
By an order dated _March 12, 1953, the
Ajmer Municipal Committee had been suspended and
that suspension was to continue till September 11, 1955.
In view of the impending elections after the pericxl. of
suspension was over, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer,
the appellant before
us,
framed
the Ajmer Stat:c
Municipalities Election Rules, 1955, in exercise of the
powers conferred by
s.
43 of the Ajmer-Mcrwara
Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925) and published
them
in
the
Government
Gazette
dated
August 4, 1955. On August 8, 1955, he notified an
election programme and also authenticated and published an electoral roll. This electoral

## Text

19;6
N.-15.
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19571
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER
v.
RADHEY SHYAM DANI.
(S. R. DAS C.J.,
BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAJ!.,
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.)
Municipal Election-Electorar roll-Election
Rules-No provision for revision of electoral roll and for adjudi'cation of claimsValidity
of
the
electoral
roll-Ajmer-Merwara
Municipalities
Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925), ss. 30 (2), 43-Apner State Municipalities Election Rules,.1955, r. 7.
Sub-section (2) of s. 30 of the Ajmcr-Merwara
Municipalities
Regulation, 1925, as amended, provided that "every person who
would be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950
(XLIII of 1950) to be registered in the electoral roll for a parliamentary Constituency if that Constituency had been co-ext:cnsivc·
with the Municipality, and whose name is registered in the electoral
roll for the
Parliamentary
Constituency
comprising the Munici·
pality, shall
be entitled to be
enrolled as an elector
of
the
Municipality"; and s. 43 enabled the _Chief Commissioner to make
rules consistent with the
Regulation
for the preparation
and
revision of electoral rolls and the adjudication of claims to be
enrolled and objections to enrolment.
In exercise of this power the appellant framed
Rules which,
inter alia, provided that the electoral roll for the particular Municipality shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary
Constituency
representing
the
area
covered
by
the
Municipality.
He
notified
an
election
programme
and
also
authenticated and published an electoral roll on August 8, 19'i5.
The respondent whose father's name was recited wrongly in the
electoral roll applied for rectification of the mistake in the Parlia...
mentary Electoral Roll, on August 10, 1955, but it was rejected on
the ground that the roll of the Municipal elections had been finally
published on August 8, 1955, and therefore no correction -could be
made.
The respondent challenged the validity of the notification
and the electoral roll.
Held, that under s. 30 (2) of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities
Regulation, 1925, the
electoral roll
for the Parliamentary cons-
!jtucncy was• only treated as the basis for the electoral roll of the
Municipality and that the rules in so far as they made no provision
for the revision of the electoral roll, fQr the adjudication of claims
to be included therein or for entertaining
objections
to
such
inclusion, were defective and,. therefore, the
electoral roll of the
Ajmer Municipality which was authenticated and published by the
appellant on August 8, 1955, was not in conformity with the
provisions of " 30 (2) and the relevant provisions of the Rcgulatioo
-
/
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(f)
and could not form the basis of any valid dections to be held to
the Ajmer Municipal Committee.
C1V1L
APPELLATE
JurusmCTioN:
Civil
Appeal
No. 181 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated September 5, 1955, of the Judicial Commissioner's
Court, Ajmer, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1-08 of 1955.
M. M. Kaul and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
1956. November 15.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal with special leave
from the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer,
restraining the District Magistrate, Ajmer, from holding
the elections imd poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9, 1955.
The respondent claimed to be a voter of the Ajmcr
Municipality.
By an order dated _March 12, 1953, the
Ajmer Municipal Committee had been suspended and
that suspension was to continue till September 11, 1955.
In view of the impending elections after the pericxl. of
suspension was over, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer,
the appellant before
us,
framed
the Ajmer Stat:c
Municipalities Election Rules, 1955, in exercise of the
powers conferred by
s.
43 of the Ajmer-Mcrwara
Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925) and published
them
in
the
Government
Gazette
dated
August 4, 1955. On August 8, 1955, he notified an
election programme and also authenticated and published an electoral roll. This electoral roll had been
corrected and altered by the orders of the Sub.Divisional
Officer on certain days prior to August 8, 1955, but the
respondent's name was alleged to have been incorrectly
described therein, his father's name having been mentioned as Ratan Lal instead of Chitar- Mal. On August
10, 1955, he applied for the correction of his father's
name in the Parliamentary Electoral Roll and on
August 16,
195~, he filed his nomination paper. His
nomination was, however, rejected on August 17, 1955,
I~
Chief 0-.Usiorur, 4-;-t
v.
/Wh<J Shy1Jt1t
Dani
Chief C•mmi.ssirmer, Ajmer
v.
,Rlulky Sh.Jam
Dani
Bhagwali j.
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
the Returning Officer stating that he was not one of
the electors according to the roll. His application for
rectification of the mistake in the Parliamentary Electoral Roll was a~o rejected on August 18, 1955, by the
Electoral Registration Officer on the ground that the
roll of the Municipal elections had been finally published
on August 8, 1955, and therefore no correction could
be made. The respondent thereupon filed on August
26, 1955, a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
108 of 1955 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner
at Ajmer against the appellant and the District Magistrate, Ajmer, inter alia for a mandamus against the
appellant to reconstitute the Ajmer Municipal Committee by a properly
made and published
notification
under s. 8(1) of the Regulation and an order against
the District Magistrate, Ajmer, restraining him from
holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal
Committee on September 9, 1955, as notified.
The learned Judicial Commissioner upheld the contention of the respondent in regard to the reconstitution of the Committee but did not issue any directions.
in regard to the same in view of the fact that the
appellant had already before that date issued a notification under s. 8 ( 1) of the Regulation to reconstitute
the Committee. He also held that Rule 7 of the Election Rules was not in consonance with and was in contradiction to s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the Regulation and was
in excess of the rule-making power conterred upon
him, and the elections proposed to be held on &eptember 9, 1955, were not lawful. He, therefore, directed
the District Magistrate, Ajmer, to refrain fro!Il holding
the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee on September 9, 1955.
On an application made by the appellant for a
certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, the·
learned Judicial Commissioner was of opinion that the
direction given by him against the District Magistrate,
Ajmer, was merely not to hold elections on September
9, 1955, and as that date had already passed when the
application was disposed of by him, no useful purpose
would be served by granting him a certificate and he
accordingly refused to gran~ the same. The appellant;
'
:S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
71
however, approached this Court and obtained
special
leave under Art. 136 for filing an appeal against the
decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner.
'When the appeal came up for hearing before us, the
respondent communicated to us
his desire
not to
appear and contest the appeal with the result that the
appeal has been heard by us ex parte.
At the outset we pointed out to the learned counsel
for the appellant that the appeal had become academic.
The appellant had in fact reconstituted the Ajmer
Municipal Committee by a proper notification under s.
8(1) of the Regulation and the date on which the elections and the poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee
were to be held, viz., September 9, 1955, had also
passed. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged before us that the pronouncement of the
learned Judicial Commissioner to the effect that Rule
7 of the Election Rules was not in consonance with
and was in contradiction to s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the
Regulation and was in excess of the Rule-making
power conferred upon the appellant was a stumbling
block in the way of the appellant holding further elections on the b~is of the electoral roll as it had been
authenticated and published by him on August 8, 1955.
If that pronouncement stood, it would be incumbent
on the appellant to authenticate and publish another
electoral roll and incur the expenses which were inevitable in that process. He, therefore, pressed upon us
that we should set aside that pronouncement so that
the Municipal elections may be held hereafter without
straining the attenuated finances of the Municipality.
The relevant provisions which fall to be considered
by us are the following :-
"Section 30. (J) : A person shall not be deemed to
be an elector for any purpose of this Regulation or of
:any rule unless he is enrolled as an elector.
(2) as amended by Act LXV of 1950 : Every person
who would be entitled under the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) to be registered in
the electoral roll for a Parliamentary Constituency if
1956
Chu] Commissio,...,
Ajnlr
v •.
Rati!u.1 ShJlma
Dani.
Bhagwa# ].
1956
ChiefC......UMner,
Jf.jmat
v.
RM!le.J ~
...
Dani.
BTiagWali J.
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957}
that Constituency had been co-extensive
with
the
Municipality, and whose name is registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency
comprising the Municipality shall be entitled to be enrolled as
an elector of the Municipality.
Section 43 : The Chief Commissioner may, by notification, make rules consistent with this Regulation for
the purpose of regulating all or any of the following
matters, namely, :-
(a) ............... .
(b) ............... .
( c) the preparation and rev1S1on of electoral rolls,
and the adjudication of claims to be enrolled and
objections to enrolment;
Section 248. ( 4) : On publication in the official
Gazette of any rules made under this Regulation, such
rules shall nave effect as if enacted in this Regulation.
Elections Rules :
Rule 7-Electoral rolls : In accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 30 of the AjmerMerwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925)
the electoral roll of the particular Municipality shall
be the same as the final printed roll for a Parliamentary Constituency representing
the area
covered
by
that Municipality.
Rule 9-Electors : No person shall be deemed to
be an elector for the purposes of these rules unless
his
name
appears in the electoral rolls mentioned
above ........ "
It is clear from s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the Regulation
that in order to be entitled to be enrolled as an elector of a Municipality, a person has to fulfil two conditions, viz., ( 1) that he should be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLTII of 1950) to
be registered in the electoral roll for a Parliamentary
Constituency if that Constituency had been co-extensive with the Municipality, and (2) that his name
should be registered in the electoral roll for a Parlia•
mentary Constituency comprising the Municipality. If
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
73
both these conditions are fulfilled he would be entitled
to be enrolled as an elector of the Municipality. In
regard to the first condition reference need be Jllade to
the qualifications prescribed· for being registered in the
electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency and
it is only i£ these qualifications are possessed by the
person that he would be entitled to be so registered. In
order, therefore, to determine whether a person is
entitled to be enrolled as an elector of a Municipality,
it would be necessary to ascertain in the first instance
whether he is entitled to be registered in the electoral
roll for the Parliamentary Constituency. Once that
condition is fulfilled, it would be further necessary to
consider whether his name is registered in the electoral
roll for the Parliamentary Constituency. If, in spite of
his fulfilling the condition that he is entitled to be
registered in the electoral roll for the . Parliamentary
Constituency, his name is not registered in the electoral roll for the same, he would not be entitled to be
enrolled as an elector of the Municipality. The latter
condition does not require any scrutiny for its fulfilment. The fact of his being registered in the electoral
roll for
the
Parliamentary Constituency would be
· apparent on the face of the electoral roll itself. The
fulfilment of the first condition, however, would be
subject to scrutiny and it would be open to any resident of the Municipality to object to the enrolment of
a particular person as an elector of the Municipality. '
Even in the case of the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency it would be open to a person toapply for a revision of that roll by applying for a
correction of the mistakes or mis-descriptions which
might have crept therein as also to have" his name
registered in the roll if it had not been so registered
provided he fulfilled the first condition, viz., that he
. was entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for the
Parliamentary Constituency. Objections could also he
filed to the enrolment of particular persons as electors
in the Parliamentary Constituency and also in the
Municipality. Apart from the preparation of the electoral roll for the Municipality it would, therefore, be
necessary to have a revision of such electoral rolls and
1956
C/aief eo .. ...u-.
lioiur, Ajriur
v.
Rllllltt1 s1i1Daai
Blulpati ] •.
19~6
Chief Commir
sionn, .Ajmer
v.
Rhd/,,y Shy1Jm
Dani.
BhagwaJi ].
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957)
also the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein
and objections to such enrolment.
This was clearly envisaged by the framers of the
Ajmer-Merwara
Municipalities
Regulation,
1925, and
with that end in view it was provided in s. 43(c) that
the Chief Commissioner may by notification make rules
consistent with the
Regulation for
the
purpose
of
regulating inter a!ia the
preparation and revision
of
electoral rolls and the adjudication of claims to be
enrolled and the objections to enrolment. Such rules
when framed and published in the official Gazette
were, by virtue of s. 248 ( 4) to have effect as if enacted
in the Regulation. They were to have statutory effect
and were to be treated as part and parcel of the Regulation and contained therein.
Before the amendment of s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the
Regulation by Act LXV of 1950 there were in existence
sub-ss. (2) and (3) of that section which prescribed the
qualifications for being enrolled as electors of the
Municipality. They were, however, substituted by the
amended s. 30, sub-s. (2), set out herein above. It thus
substituted for the qualifications which had till then
been considered requisite for such enrolment all the
qualifications which were required for being registered
in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency.
That, however, was a provision prescribing the qualifications for the purposes of such enrolment and the
object of the amendment was to adopt the electoral
roll for the Parliamentary Constituency
as the
basis
for the electoral roll of the Municipality. 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 thereir, and objections to such enrolments. The amendment did not obviate the necessity
of taking these further steps in spite of the electoral
roll for the Parliamentary Constituency being treated
as the electoral roll of the Municipality.
By
thus
treating the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency as the basis for the electoral roll of the Municipality,
the
trouble and expenses involved in the
preparation of the electoral roll for the Municipality
were saved
but the Municipality was
not absolved
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
75
from the obligation of providing for the revision of
such electoral roll as well as the adjudication of claims
to be enrolled therein and objections to such enrolment.
When the Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules,
1955, came to be framed in exercise of the power conferred by s. 43 of the Regulation,
the Chief Commissioner framed Rule 7 which provided that the electoral
roll for the particular Municipality shall be the same
as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary Constituency representing the area covered by the
Municipality. He dispensed with the independent preparation
by the Municipality of the electoral roll hut 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 mentioned above. That had reference obviously to the second
condition prescribed in s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the Regulation but did not go far enough. It did not say that
a person whose name appeared in the electoral rolls
for the Parliamentary Constituency was to be deemed
to be an elector for the purposes of the Rules so as to
obviate the necessity of fulfilling the first condition
therein prescribed and rightly so, because, if it did say
so, it would be in conflict with s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the
Regulation. These Rules did not eliminate the scrutiny
which could be made at the instance of the parties
concerned as to whether a person whose name was
registered in the electoral roll for
the Parliamentary
Constituency was in fact entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIJI of 1950) to be so
registered and whether he possessed the qualification
prescribed in that Act in this behalf nor did they eliminate the further scrutiny for the purpose of the revision of such electoral roll or the adjudication of
claims to be enrolled therein and objections to such
enrolment.
It ·is of the essence of these elections 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
1956
C/riej CommissiontT, Ajmnr
v.
Bhopali J.
1956
Chief conmm·
sioner,
.Ajmtr
v.
.Rodlrey Sl!1am
Dani.
BhagwotiJ.
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
opportunity should be given to the parties concerned
to scrutinize whether the· persons enrolled as electors
possessed
the
requisite
qualifications.
Opportunity
should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll
and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein
and entertaining objections to such enrolment.
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 \nstance of the parties concerned. It was in our
opinion, therefore,
necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far as the
rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions
they were defective.
It was urged that the expression "the final printed
roll for
the Parliamentary
Constituency"
predicated
that the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency had been finalished after going through the whole
procedure in accordance with the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950)
and, therefore, . there was no necessity for making any
further provision of that nature in the matter of the
electoral roll of the Municipality. This contention is
unsound for the simple reason that by using this phraseology the tyhole of the procedure laid down in the
Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950)
is not bodily incorporated in the Ajmer-Merwar Municipalities Regulation, 1925 (VI of 1925). Neither the
Regulation nor the Rules which have been framed by
the Chief Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 43 of the Regulation make any mention
of any such incorporation nor is it possible
to urge
that, merely because the electoral roll for the Parliamentary Constituency was treated as the basis for the
electoral roll of the Municipality, these provisions were
bodily incorporated in the Rules. If Rules 7 and 9
above referred to 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 s. 30, sub-s. (2),
-0f the Regulation or were defective in so far as they
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
77
failed to provide the proper procedure for taking of the
steps
hereinabove indicated for finalising the electoral
roll of ~he Municipality. If that was the true position
the electoral roll of the Municipality which had been
authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner
on August 8, 1955, was certainly not an electoral roll
prepared in accordance with law on the basis of which
the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee
could be held either on September 9, 1955, or at any
time thereafter.
In the view which we hold, it is not necessary to
consider whether, in the event of an inconsistency
between s. 30, sub-s. (2), of the Regulation and the
Rules framed by the Chief Commissioner in exercise of
the power conferred under s. 43 of the Regulation, the
section would prevail or the Rules.
Suffice it to say
that the electoral roll of the Ajmer Municipality which
was authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955, was not in conformity
with the provisions of s. 30, sub-s. (2), and the relevant
provisions of the Regulation and could not form the
basis of any valid elections to be held to the Ajmer
Municipal Committee.
Under the circuP1;,tances we see no substance in the
appeal and dismiss tb.e same. There will be, however,
no order as to costs of the appeal in so far as the
respondent has not appeared and contested the appeal
before us.
Appeal dismissed.
RA JES KANT A ROY
fJ.
SANTI DEBI
(JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. S1NHA and }AFER IMAM, JJ.)
Trust deed-Construction-Vested interest or contingent interest
-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), ss. 19, 21-Attachable interest-Execution of decree-Compromise decree providing for
a personal remedy and a charge-Whether personal remedy could be
pursued in the first instance.
1956
Chief ConwWsioner 4frM'
v.
Ratlliey
Shyam
Dani
Bhllgwati J,
Novemh<T 19