ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. versus COLLECTOR, RAIPUR & ORS .

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 04-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
' " 
.. 
t 
' • 1 
491 
ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. 
v. 
COLLECTOR, RAIPUR & ORS . 
September 4, 1979 
[A. C. GUPTA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 226 & Madhya Pradesh Municipal Cor-
poration ,.(Preparation, Revi.rion and Publication of Electoral Roll.r and Selec-
rion of Councillors) 
Rule.r 1963, Rules 4(1), 4(3)-Notification i.Jsued 
:;tipulated 20 days tin1e for filing objections to electoral roll-Rule provided 
30 day3-Writ Petition filed three days before, election ilnpugning electoral 
roll-Writ if could be i:r.rued. , 
On September 30, 1978 the Collector published the preliminary electoral 
roll under Rule 4(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Prepa-
ration, Revision and Publication of Electoral Roll! and Selection of Councillors) 
Rules, 1963 for the purpose of holding elections in December, 1978 to the 
Municipal Corporation, and also issued a notice under the said rule inviting 
claims or objections to be filed within twenty days from the date of publication 
-of the notice. 
A period of 30 days v.·as however actually provided in the 
rule. 
The final publication of the electoral roll was made on November 16, 
1978. After November 25, 1978 a large number of nominations were received 
by the Returning Officer and the. final list of candidates for the elections with 
their symbols was published on December 20, 1978 and the poll took place 
on December 31, 1978. 
The appellants (Petitioners 1, 5 and 6) along with some other.5 in their 
writ petition. filed on December 28, 1978 contended that the entire election 
process had become vitiated on account of the defect in the notice issued 
'by the Collector under Rule 4(1) providiQ_g. 20 days for pre~erring claims 
.and objections while tho rule prescribed 30 days and that by non-compliance 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
with this mandatory requirement, the entire election process held on the 
p 
'basis of the defective electoral roll, became a nullity and iherefore the decla-
ration of results of the successful candidates was liable to be quashed. 
The High Court held that the appellanbl were not entitled to any relief 
.as they had approachr.<l the Court after undue del;ay. 
Dismissing the appeals this Court, 
HELD : I. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary and 
if the High Court finds that there· is no satisfactory explanation for the in-
ordinate delay, it may reject the petition if it finds 
that the issue of writ 
will lead to public inconvenience and interference with rights of others. 
This 
rule applielll also to a case in which the validity of an election to a local 
:authority is challenged. 
The question ¥.'hetber in a given case the delay 
involved is such that it disentitles a person to relief under Art. 226 is a 
matter within the discretion of the High Court which as in all matters of 
G 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
discretion has to exercise it judiciously and reasonably having regard to th.-
surrounding circunistances. 
[497C-D] 
2. If the appellants felt that the notice . under Rule 4 ( 3) suffered from 
any illegality, they could have brought it to the notice of the 
Collector 
irrimediately therea.fter. 
It was open to th'em to move the State Government 
under Rule 6 of the Rules to make an order directing the Collector to follo\\' 
B 
the provisions governing the preparation of the electoral roll. 
It was also 
open to them to file a writ petition immediately after the publication of the 
said notice questioning its legality. 
None of the above courses was adopted 
by the appellants. 
Persons \Vhose claims· were rejected could have filed an 
appeal under Rule 5 before the Collector. 
No such appeal was presented. 
c 
D 
• 
E 
[495H-496B] 
3. It was only on December 5, 1978 for the first time a letter was 
addressed by one · of the petitioners to the Collector drawing his attention 
to 
th~ error that had crept into the notice under Rule 4(1) of the Rules. 
By that time, the nominations had all been received. The final list of candi-
dates for the election with their symbols was published on December 20, 
1978. The writ petition itself was filed on December 28, 1978 when the poll 
had to take place on December 31, 1978. No satisfactory explanation was 
given in the course of the petition by the petitioners as to why they delayed' 
the filing of the petition till December 28, 1978, even though the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.